BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 150 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: I think the use will maintain, promote the public health, safety, and general 2 welfare. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: And specifically what evidence that we heard makes you believe that it will 5 maintain or promote the health and general welfare? 6 7 Karen Barrows: We heard Dunc say that he thinks would allow for better communication for 8 emergencies. We have speculative heard there might be some adverse health effects ….. 9 10 Barry Katz: We have the impact statements also that was submitted by the Applicant. We have 11 these environmental statements that support the fact that there will be no long-term adverse 12 effects to putting this in. Those were the basis for why we had this proposed, uh …. proposal that 13 we accept this. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a? Is there a motion to find that the Special Use Permit would, that the 16 use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, and general welfare if located where 17 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted? 18 19 Motion made by Karen Barrows that the use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, 20 and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan 21 as submitted. Seconded by Barry Katz. 22 23 VOTE: Unanimous 24 25 Samantha Cabe: So the second question. The use will or will not maintain or enhance the value of 26 contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity, which I think we’ve talked about that it’s 27 not, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property. So 28 Mr. Bryan, is there any case law or is there any more detail in the Unified Development Ordinance 29 about what it means to maintain the value, does it just mean to not cause it to decrease? 30 31 James Bryan: That would be my assumption, just by the plain meaning of the words. If you’re 32 looking at not the negative, zero, or positive. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: The Opponent ….. the opponent asks us to find that the Applicant has not met 35 their burden to prove that they’ve met this standard based upon the testimony and appraisal 36 report of Mike Ogburn who is a residential appraisal expert, the testimony of Evan and Owen 37 Gwen, affidavits of Ben Rudnik and William Anylne, letters between council for opponents and 38 TowerCom regarding timbering of Buckner Family Farm Trust property, inadequacies of applicant 39 expert report on this issue, and failure of the applicant to establish a public necessity for the tower. 40 41 Karen Barrows: I think the opponents established the project would not maintain or enhance the 42 value of contiguous properties …... 43 44 Samantha Cabe: You believe that the opponents have. That their evidence. 45 46 Karen Barrows: They had the appraiser who was pretty clear …. 47 48 Samantha Cabe: So are making a motion that the Board finds that the Applicant has not met the 49 requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property? 50 152