BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 143 of 156 needs are the evidence that they propose support the finding of no. And they have also set forth 1 the General Statute that we discussed earlier I believe. 2 3 James Bryan: And Madam Chair, if you’d like I’ve got the Unified Development Ordinance, which 4 is a little lengthy. 5 6 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you would read the Unified Development Ordinance for us? 7 8 James Bryan: And so Michael’s just does it to (b)(3)(d) the opponent specifying (d) subsection for 9 that so… Evidence that the Applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed 10 equipment on existing wireless support structure. Such evidence shall consist of the listing of all 11 wireless telecommunications support structure within a 2-mile radius of the proposed wireless 12 support structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utility poles, and other 13 structures in the vicinity in the proposed vicinity that are technically feasible for utilization by the 14 Applicant to fill all or a substantial portion of the telecommunication service need identified by the 15 Applicant pursuant to section 5.10.8(a)(1)(s). Documents shall be submitted at the time of 16 application filing that indicates the Applicant’s ability or inability to co-locate on the identified 17 towers and reasons why. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Alright, and Staff’s recommendation of finding that the Applicant has complied 20 with that provision of the Unified Development Ordinance are the application package tabs 4, 5, 6, 21 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1. So that would include the network objective statement, Mr. 22 Haughney, who we also heard testimony from, the search ring photographs are tab 5, the 4G 23 capacity trigger sectors behind tab 6, and the… I can’t remember what you call these but the 24 maps that show change in coverage with the proposed tower behind tab 7, and then 21, which is 25 a letter from Chase Real Estate Services. It has a copy of the Unified Development Ordinance 26 that Mr. Bryan just read. So the letter behind tab 21 states, “No tower or other suitable facility 27 exists within the area where the equipment is to be placed on the tower will function in its intended 28 manner. There is one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2-mile radius of the 29 proposed site” and that was their search ring that they spoke about in the paragraph above the, 30 “This wireless telecommunication support structure is not within the search area for the tower. 31 Verizon Wireless is already co-located on this wireless telecommunication support structure 32 shown as the Farrington Mill Site in the map of existing Verizon Wireless sites. There are no 33 wireless telecommunications support structures within the search area and no alternative 34 structures of sufficient height within the search area feasible for co-location. Therefore, a new 35 telecommunication tower is required. Please refer to the search ring map attached here too as 36 Exhibit 5. Please also refer to the map of existing Verizon Wireless site attached here too as 37 Exhibit 6”. So that is the statement that the Applicant contends is evidence that they have 38 investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment. And our Ordinance says that they 39 shall provide those lists. This letter behind number 22 states that they are providing this 40 information but that they are also submitting that they. It remains their position that the North 41 Carolina General Statutes control the review of this application but they’re submitting the 42 information requested pursuant to the Unified Development Ordinance in the interest of time. So it 43 sounds like they’re arguing that the Statute may not require this such specifics but they provided 44 us with this letter. Does anyone have any discussion or? 45 46 Barry Katz: I proposed that we accept the Staff’s recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the 47 evidence that the Applicant provided so listed. 48 49 145