Browse
Search
BOA agenda 031317
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
BOA agenda 031317
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2018 4:35:07 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 4:26:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/13/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
BOA minutes 031317
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Minutes\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 154 of 156 <br /> <br />James Bryan: So it’s an implication that they’ve… If you’ve heard anything contrary to that you 1 <br />could still find an opposing end to that. Also, remember that this standard is more than just in 2 <br />harmony. It’s also and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the 3 <br />County as embodied in these regulations or the comprehensive plan or portion thereof. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Samantha Cabe: So essentially, the fact that the County Commissioners have allowed this to be 6 <br />an approved use that’s the Prima facie case that it’s in harmony but we could find that something 7 <br />makes this out of harmony? 8 <br /> 9 <br />James Bryan: Oh definitely, yeah. The one inclusion is that you can’t say no matter what you 10 <br />showed me you wouldn’t be in harmony. That you can’t do. But if you had opposing evidence that 11 <br />was substantial, competent material you could definitely that this is not in harmony or not with the 12 <br />comprehensive plan. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Samantha Cabe: And the opponents position, with regard to finding that the Applicant has not met 15 <br />this burden, is the testimony of Owen Gwen and Even Gwen, Dove Field property maps, photos 16 <br />regarding visibility of the tower, and petitions in opposition to the new tower. Also, Dove Field 17 <br />master plan map and testimony of Erin Gwen with regard to the tower. TowerCom contends the 18 <br />supporting evidence for voting yes is the application package inclusive or but not limited to the 19 <br />Narrative of tab 1, the impact analysis of tab 32 and 35 G, the site plan of tab 8, tabs 13, 33, and 20 <br />35B, the balloon test results, which is abstract attachment 5, the location and character of the 21 <br />proposed wireless telecommunication facility if developed according to the plan submitted will be 22 <br />in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Subject property and majority of surrounding 23 <br />properties in the area are all zoned rural buffer or existing commercial. Five new free standing 24 <br />telecommunication towers over 75-feet high and under 200-feet in high are permitted in the rural 25 <br />buffer and EC5 districts as a Class B Special Use. It goes on to say the proposed tower will be 26 <br />under the 200-feet limitation in height and will be a monopole type design without lattice or guide 27 <br />wires and will be made of galvanized steel to blend with the changing color of the sky. The tower 28 <br />will not lit or marked. The proposed tower will be located toward the rear of the large, over 18-29 <br />acre, property set back over 1,000-feet from the adjacent Mount Carmel Church Road public right 30 <br />of way. The subject property upon which the tower will be located is currently densely wooded. As 31 <br />much as the existing vegetation as possible will be maintained around the access road and tower. 32 <br />They go on to talk about the landscape buffer and that the facility will be unmanned and will not be 33 <br />an employment center requiring only periodic maintenance on a monthly basis on average. 34 <br />Therefore, traffic in the area should not be impacted. The subject property is in a largely rural area 35 <br />with surrounding properties that are also densely wooded and not densely populated, and 36 <br />separated from large, residential developments. They contend that they are in compliance with the 37 <br />Comprehensive Plan pursuant to their Narrative in tab 1. And propose the finding, that based on 38 <br />the above findings, Applicant’s Narrative and Staff’s report, the location and nature of the use if 39 <br />developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be 40 <br />located. And the use in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as 41 <br />embodied by these regulations and Comprehensive Plan… I think this Board is in a position of, 42 <br />essentially, we can’t say that. The County Commissioners have determined that the erection of 43 <br />this type of tower is a permitted use with a Special B Use Permit in a rural buffer zone. And 44 <br />showing other than it’s not in harmony regardless of what they do we have to find that it is in 45 <br />harmony. And I think probably every neighbor in here would say there’s nothing you could do to 46 <br />make it in harmony. Because nobody wants it in their yard. But I don’t know. We’re not permitted 47 <br />to make that finding. We have to be specific about why it’s not in harmony. Because the County’s 48 <br />determined this is appropriate use in a rural buffer zoned area. 49 <br /> 50 <br />156
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.