BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 18 Michael Harvey: Ok, section on page 119; section 5.8.10 A2, application for the co -location of antennas. 1 Staff is recommending finding that this provision is not applicable. It’s just not proposed co -location of an 2 antenna. Period. Compliance with sections 5.8.10 B 1a and 1b; Overall Policy and Desired Goals. We have 3 found that the applicant has provided this information, it’s the narrative contained in attachment 2. So they 4 have met their burden. The next provision, the Ballon Test. Staff is recommending the f inding of this 5 provision is N/A because as required by the code all proposed telecommunication support structures are 6 supposed to fly a balloon test. There’s no telecommunication support structures proposed, no balloon test 7 was required. 8 9 James Bryan: This is one that I think is required. I don’t know how you could require it afterwards. 10 11 Michael Harvey: I’m holding onto the fact that the language that the ordinance has proposed new wireless 12 facilities; no new facility is proposed, ergo, the staff did not require them to hold the balloon test. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 15 16 Michael Harvey: Submittal of site plan is the next standard requirement. We have a site plan in the record. 17 Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the color, natur e and exterior material, 18 along with the make, model and manufacturer of the proposed structure, maximum antenna heights, and 19 power levels. This is all contained in the supplemental material we’ve provided you. So we’re indicating this 20 condition has been met. A landscape plan; the application attachment 2 discusses landscaping. The site 21 plan discusses landscaping, specifically sheet C-1A denotes additional vegetation that’s going to be 22 installed. Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment 23 on an existing wireless support structure; we’re making the finding that’s N/A as no proposed equipment or 24 proposed antenna were part of this application. 25 26 James Bryan: 3D? 27 28 Michael Harvey: Yes, sir. 5.8.10 3d. 29 30 James Bryan: I would recommend that you need a yes or no. 31 32 Henry Campen: There’s no proposed equipment. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: We get it. 35 36 Michael Harvey: Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating requirements, which 37 affect the appearance of the proposed structure, such as lighting and coloring; we’re making an affirmative 38 finding, again, using the supplemental material we’ve provided you. The original SUP, the approved and 39 recorded SUP, and all the other information we’ve entered into the reco rd. Page 122, draft bond 40 guaranteeing approval of the wireless support structure; we’re recommending it’s N/A. To address Mr. 41 Bryan’s concern we can give you a recommended finding of yes, and that there’s an existing bond covering 42 the removal of this facility if it’s already in place. There is no bond, however, require independent of that 43 previously issued bond covering the installation of the roadway. A list of current tax method map identifying 44 all property owners; that’s attachment 2, it’s been provided. A report containing any comment received by 45 the applicants response to the balloon test; since no balloon test was done and no balloon test was 46 required this report was not required to be submitted. Neither was there evidence that the balloon test 47 requirements were met, nor a notarized statement that the sign advertised that the balloon test was posted. 48 I will remind the board, however, there’s evidence in your packet that we held the required neighborhood 49