BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 145 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Alright. The Use Specific Standards for telecommunications facilities, we must 2 make a finding that the overall policy and desire goals of promoting and encouraging alternatives 3 to constructing new wireless support structure would be met. And I know that there’s more specific 4 language in the Unified Development Ordinance. I think that’s a paraphrasing. The Opponent… 5 You said it’s on page 4 or page 5? 6 7 Matt Hughes: Four. 8 9 James Bryan: Four, the last item. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Oh. The Opponents argue that we should find that this Use Specific Standard 12 has not been met based upon the testimony of the opponents expert, Ben Levitan, on 13 commercially practical co-location of wireless equipment on existing structures capable of locating 14 equipment to satisfy identified needs, failure of application to even consider non-tower structures. 15 And if Mr. Bryan, could you just read the section of the Unified Development Ordinance that 16 addresses that Use Specific standard so we know exactly what we are looking for? 17 18 James Bryan: Yeah and if I may preface with… So I’m going to read (b) and then (1) and then (a). 19 They all sort of flow together. It’s going to mention that it’s a submittal requirement but also reads 20 as an evaluation and I think the Board needs to make a call on that. I think we’re possible err on 21 the side of making a decision of whether it meets it or not… In addition to the general submittal 22 requirements detailed herein and these specific submittal requirements for all Special Use Permit 23 applications details within section 2.7 of these Ordinance Applicant’s shall be required to adhere 24 to the following. One; the overall policy and desired goals for the Special Use Permits for wireless 25 telecommunication support structures shall be promoting and encouraging, wherever possible, the 26 following: A.) Alternatives to constructing new wireless support structures including but not limited 27 to the co-location of wireless telecommunication equipment and mitigated the visual affect of a 28 wireless telecommunication support structure to an extent not commercially impractical. And if I 29 may? Because it’s got the extent commercially impractical I think that’s a clear standard of 30 evaluation. We call this a middle requirement but it doesn’t sound like it, it sounds ….. 31 32 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there any discussion on that? I think we need to make a finding that 33 they have or they have not submitted evidence before us that would support a finding that there 34 are not wireless telecommunication towers or alternative structures that are commercially feasible 35 to meet their objectives for co-location within their search area, leaving no alternative to 36 constructing a new tower. So we would either find that they have or they have not met that 37 burden. 38 39 Matt Hughes: How is this? This requirement seems duplicative to what we approved. 40 41 James Bryan: Oh yeah. So there’s lots of overlap with this. 42 43 Matt Hughes: I just don’t want to seem like I’m going crazy. 44 45 James Bryan: No, you’re not. You’re going to see it again with the standards evaluation, and then 46 all those standards of evaluation. Remember those big three, the public health, safety, welfare, 47 property values, stuff like that. Those usually encompass all the other ones. So if you’ve got 48 something that says, I’m sorry I can’t think of any examples but the buffers. That might fall into 49 property values. So there is a lot of duplication. Here in particular, but always. 50 147