BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 147 of 156 Samantha Cabe: You can summarize the (B) and the (1) that you’ve already read in the. The Big 1 (B) 1. 2 3 James Bryan: Alright. It’s that the Applicants shall be required to adhere to the following overall 4 policies and desired goals; Promoting and encouraging wherever possible the following: B) the 5 placement, height, and quantity of wireless telecommunication towers and equipment in such a 6 manner including but not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques to 7 minimize adverse aesthetics and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other 8 facilities adjacent to surrounding and in generally the same area as the requested location as 9 such wireless telecommunication support structure, which shall mean using the least visually and 10 physically intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impractical under the facts 11 and circumstances. Again, I would urge the Board that it’s also past the circumstances it talks 12 about commercial technology that so applied as a standard. 13 14 Barry Katz: Ms. Goode addressed this issue tonight, in that in order for it to be commercially 15 practical there was no way on a 199-foot tower that you could make this tower any prettier than it 16 is. But they made an application, we’ll see whether it’s a valid application, but they’ve made an 17 application to put this tower up and I can’t imagine this tower could be rejected because there is 18 no way to make this thing prettier than it is. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: I think we would reject it if there was a way to make it prettier and they didn’t do 21 it. Or if it was commercially feasible and they didn’t do it. 22 23 Barry Katz: Right. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: I would say we heard testimony or there’s evidence within the application that 26 the stealth technology, mono-pine, just were not feasible. That they did consider it and it was not 27 technologically feasible or commercially practical to implement either of those technologies and 28 standard does say that they must do it wherever possible, and technologically feasible and 29 commercially practical. Does anyone have a motion for me whether to find that they have met this 30 burden or not? 31 32 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt staff’s recommendation in regards to 5.10.8 (B)(1)(b) based 33 upon the Applicants presentation that it considered stealth technology and it was not logically 34 feasible or commercially practical. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 35 36 VOTE: Unanimous 37 38 Samantha Cabe: We will find that the Applicant has met that burden. Going down to the last item 39 on this page. Location of wireless support structures 5.10.8(B)(4)(b). The... If you could help… 40 41 James Bryan: That’s on, you’re like where the abundance one… 42 43 Samantha Cabe: Yes, on page 5, the third one down. Is that it? 44 45 James Bryan: It’s the third and the fourth one so. And Michael ‘s stops at (B)(4)(b). 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Which includes all the little subsections? 48 49 James Bryan: Yeah, and he split it up into (B)(1)(2) and then (B)(3). 50 149