Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 142 of 156 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff’s recommendations on page 149 of specific submittal 2 <br />requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 3 <br /> 4 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 5 <br /> 6 <br />Samantha Cabe: On page 150. Are there any of those Unified Development Ordinance Submittal 7 <br />requirements that the Opponent contends have not been met? 8 <br /> 9 <br />James Bryan: Yeah, I found the Applicant is supplementing the first one. The opponent has an 10 <br />alternative for the fifth one. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Samantha Cabe: The first one and the… Alright, so the Opponent has submitted a supplement 13 <br />with regard to application for the co-location of antennas. 14 <br /> 15 <br />James Bryan: The Applicant. (long pause) It looks like they’re saying. They’re adding letters 16 <br />dated December 12th between Carolina Telecommunications Services LLC, Michael Harvey …... 17 <br /> 18 <br />Samantha Cabe: And was that submitted at some point? 19 <br /> 20 <br />James Bryan: I don’t know. The December 12th one from Carolina Telecommunications. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Laura Goode: It was introduced into the record in the first hearing. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Jackie Hicks: Yes. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Samantha Cabe: On December the 12th? At our prior hearing? Oh yes, ok. Additional affidavit 27 <br />number 4. Do you know about that? Ok. Staff has recommended a finding of yes, that they have 28 <br />met that submittal requirement pending condition of numbers 8 and 9 in the abstract, which are on 29 <br />pages 163. Do I have a motion to find that the Applicant has met their burden of submitting the 30 <br />submittal requirement under 5.8.10(a)(2), which relates to applications for the co-location of 31 <br />antennas? 32 <br /> 33 <br />Motion made by Barry Katz that the Applicant has successfully complied with the co-location 34 <br />requirement obligation in 5.8.10(a)(2). Seconded by Matt Hughes. 35 <br /> 36 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 37 <br /> 38 <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok, motion carries. And then the fifth one down, that the Applicant has provided 39 <br />evidence that the Applicant has investigate the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment on 40 <br />an existing wireless support structure, and the Opponent has proposed that… I’m not sure, do you 41 <br />see that they? I’m not seeing where they opposed that one or had an alternate finding, they 42 <br />certainly argued it but. 43 <br /> 44 <br />James Bryan: So it’s on page 5 I believe, the second line of page 5 5.10.8(b)(3)(d). 45 <br /> 46 <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok and the Opponent has asked us to find no with the regard to that arguing that 47 <br />there is no listing in the application of other structures capable of handling wireless equipment 48 <br />such as electrical transmission towers, water towers, buildings, or other structures. The testimony 49 <br />of Ben Levitan, the opponents expert on such structures and the use thereof to satisfy identified 50 <br />144