BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 146 of 156 1 Barry Katz: Well I propose that we submit Staff’s recommendation and approve that the Applicant 2 has met this particular standard. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Ok, and the Staff’s proposed finding is that there are currently no wireless 5 telecommunication towers or alternative structures of sufficient height for co-location in search 6 area, leaving no alternative to constructing a new tower. Is that the proposed finding? 7 8 Barry Katz: That’s the proposed finding. Ok. Sure, that is my proposed finding. 9 10 Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff’s recommendation and approve that the Applicant has 11 met the burden under 5.10.8 (b) (1) (a) Seconded by Matt Hughes. 12 13 VOTE: Unanimous 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Same analysis under the next section. That the Applicant has met the burden of 16 showing that its plan to build the tower is promoting and encouraging placement to minimize 17 adverse aesthetic impacts. Staff’s proposed finding is that it will be under 200-feet and will be 18 made of material intended to blend with the sky, will be located at the rear of the large property, 19 it’s set back 1,000-feet from the adjacent public right of way, will be located on a densely wooded 20 property, in a not densely populated area that is separated from large residential developments. 21 The Opponent argues that we should find no in regard to that finding and is that in the same? 22 23 James Bryan: That’s in page 5. The first one. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: The Opponent proposes that the Applicant doesn’t utilize any stealth technology 26 or camouflage techniques and cites the testimony of Ben Levitan on commercially practical use of 27 alternative structures and technologies avoiding necessity for having to erect the tower. Is there 28 any? 29 30 Barry Katz: Well we heard expert witness opposing Mr. Levitan’s observation for this particular 31 site. Mr. Levitan made very good points but as we see, well, as was proposed by the Applicant, 32 there really was no practical way aside from building this 199-foot tower. 33 34 Karen Barrows: Well I think we heard Mr. Gwen. We heard the expert. And we’ve heard neighbors 35 that have said, aesthetically, they don’t think it’s positioned to minimize visibility. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: We did hear that the testimony how it is not aesthetically pleasing that will not be 38 aesthetically pleasing we also heard testimony regarding the infeasibility of the stealth technology 39 for this particular tower and the problems with the mono-pine, that it would look even worse. 40 41 Matt Hughes: I think it is what it is and they’re doing what’s possible given the specifications of the 42 cell tower and how much you would possibly camouflage it. 43 44 Samantha Cabe: Let’s see if TowerCom addressed this in their… This is TowerCom’s sort of 45 response but they didn’t address this one on theirs. Mr. Bryan, could you read the section of the 46 Unified Development Ordinance to be 5.10.8 (b)(1)(b)? 47 48 James Bryan: Yes ma’am. Would you like the (B) and the (1) again for a refresher? 49 50 148