BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 149 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: Can I just ask? And we did say that Ms. Corbin still has concerns that …... 2 3 Barry Katz: That’s (inaudible) 4 5 Motion made by Barry Katz of finding that the Applicant has met its responsibilities under the 6 Unified Development Ordinance provision set forth on page 155. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 7 8 VOTE: Unanimous 9 10 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting another 20-minutes. Seconded by Samantha 11 Cabe. 12 13 VOTE: Unanimous 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Page 156 of the abstract includes use specific standards 16 5.10.8(B)(4)(f)(g)(h)(i)(m)(j). Are any of those? 17 18 James Bryan: I didn’t find any the general standards on 160. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Alright, so we can consider the use specific standards. Do I have a motion to 21 adopt Staff recommendations with regard to use specific standards set forth on pages 155, 156, 22 157, 158, and 159? Or if there’s any discussion we can… 23 24 Karen Barrows: Didn’t we just do 155? 25 26 Barry Katz: Yeah, just 156 through 159. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 156 through 159. Is there a motion to accept Staff with regard to use specific 29 standards? 30 31 Motion made by to adopt Staff recommendations with regard to Use Specific Standards on pages 32 156, 157, 158, and, 159 based on the comments in our records that the use and evidence. 33 Seconded by Karen Barrows. 34 35 VOTE: Unanimous 36 37 Samantha Cabe: And now, the ultimate questions. The general standards, with regard. Let’s do 38 these one at a time. We are required to find that the use will or will not maintain or promote the 39 public’s health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and 40 operated according to the plan as submitted. Is there any discussion as to whether the Applicant 41 has met this burden? I will read to you the Opponents position on that. The Opponent states that 42 petitions in opposition to the application for telecommunications facility Special Use Permit made 43 part of the record, these are the supports for finding no, and testimony of Evan Gwen regarding 44 potential adverse impact on wildlife and plant life along adjacent wildlife corridor, as well as 45 unknown long term health hazards. Without necessarily finding that they have met that burden I 46 will say that I do believe we’ve received into evidence impact statements on the environment and 47 the wildlife, as well as the Statute prohibits us from finding that there’s a health hazard with regard 48 to the EMT’s related to the cell tower. But otherwise, does anyone have a motion or want to 49 discuss whether the Applicant has met their burden? 50 151