BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 148 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Alright. And if you could just read that section of the Unified Development 2 Ordinance so we know exactly what we’re deciding here? 3 4 James Bryan: Sure. So the little (b) is location of wireless support structures, and then (i) has 5 applicants for facilities shall locate site and erect site facilities according to the following priorities, 6 in the following order: A) on existing County owned facilities without increasing the height of the 7 tower or structure. B) On existing facilities without increasing the height of the tower or structure. 8 C) On County owned properties or facilities. D) On properties and areas zoned for commercial or 9 industrial use E) on properties and areas zoned agricultural residential, AR. F) on properties and 10 areas zoned for residential use. The second one (i) is: If an applicant proposes to place 11 telecommunications equipment at a location that is not on a preferred priority one site then the 12 applicant must provide a detailed explanation as to why a higher priority site is not proposed. The 13 explanation shall be in the form of a written report, demonstrate the applicant’s review of the 14 above locations in order of priority and the reasons for the site selection. The explanation shall, at 15 a minimum, include the information required by section 5.10.8(B)(3)(t). 16 17 Samantha Cabe: So this is the… The staff recommends that the Applicant has met this specific 18 standard based upon application package tab 30 and 31, and Narrative tab 1. This would also, I 19 believe, include that letter. The letter stating that there were no, in tab 21. That there were no 20 facilities existing in the area where the equipment could be placed on the tower, and they went 21 through the one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2-mile radius at the 22 proposed site even though that site was not in their search ring. They did identify that and explain 23 why that particular site was not available, but I believe there’s also the letter stating that there 24 were no co-location sites within their search ring. I believe we talked about in our hearing the 25 Statute that says that we cannot require them to co-locate on a telephone pole or… and our 26 Statute specifically says that… Or our Unified Development Ordinance says that a telephone pole 27 is not a wireless support structure. And I believe the opponents position is that they didn’t provide 28 a specific list of things that were there and that they turned down. But I’m not sure if they’re saying 29 that there weren’t any that you could provide a list of the negative, but their list was saying there 30 were not any that met the standard. And staff has proposed that we find, that the 31 telecommunication structure is located on property zoned rural buffer i.e., property zoned for 32 residential use. Facility siting is not possible at the locations identified in the subsection as there 33 are no existing mono-pole, lattice, or guide wireless telecommunications structures within one half 34 mile of the proposed wireless support structure. Do I have a motion with regard to whether we 35 should find yes or no that they have met this requirement? 36 37 Motion made by Karen Barrows to adopt Staff’s recommendation in regard to 5.10.8(B)(4)(b) 38 based the evidence in the application package. Seconded by Barry Katz. 39 40 VOTE: Unanimous 41 42 Samantha Cabe: That motions carries. On to page 155. Are there any of page 155 Mr. Bryan? 43 44 James Bryan: I didn’t find any. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: That is where the access provision is located. Does anyone have a motion with 47 regard to the findings on page 155, or would anyone like to discuss any of those? It would be a 48 finding that they’ve met their use specific requirements for fall zone setbacks, access, landscape, 49 and buffer type C land use buffer. 50 150