BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 19 meeting and posted the signs associated with the required neighborhood meeting. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Are you saying that this is one that you agree with, or you’re saying we should have a 3 yes? 4 5 James Bryan: I believe that… The supporting evidence says that it wasn’t required but it wasn’t required by 6 staff. I believe the UDO does require it. It may be ridiculous, there may be somebody that says “this is 7 ridiculous, you’ve got an existing building the same height…”, but that’s how the UDO is written and I have 8 to advise the Board that you guys are bound to enfo rce the UDO as it is written. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 11 12 Michael Harvey: My point is the ordinance makes specific reference that the balloon test should be flown to 13 height of proposed towers and since there’s no proposed tower the staff gained that there was no 14 requirement to comply with the balloon test. 15 16 James Bryan: For that you guys are getting a use. The use is for the entire parcel and it’s for a tower. 17 There’s no avoiding that there is a tower. It’s being modified. How it’s being modified is far away but the use 18 is being modified. 19 20 Michael Harvey: On page 122, I’ve testified that there is a bond already in place. There is; so if you make it 21 an affirmative finding then you’re making it an affirmative finding based on the supplemental material and 22 my testimony that a bond already exists for the removal of the telecom tower associated with the original 23 approval. They have supplied the tax map information as required. We’ve already covered the balloon test 24 so I apologize for being repetitive. On the SUP application shall include a statement that the facility and its 25 equipment will comply with all federal, state, and local emission requirements. I’m going to refer you again; 26 we’ve made an affirmative finding. The original SUP application and all the supplement material we’ve 27 submitted, including the structural analyses supplied this required information. On page 124, for 28 environmental assessment analysis and visual addendum; the UDO requires, if this is required, then this is 29 the standard it has to meet. The environmental assessment was not a requirement because they’re not 30 disturbing sufficient land areas, it’s already been testified to, to require one and the visual addendum is also 31 not required because, quite frankly, there is nothing being done to the existing tower. And that’s section 32 5.8.10 B3m. And it reads as follows: An applicant may be required to submit an environmental assessment 33 analysis and a visual addendum based on the results of that analysis including the visual addendum the 34 county may require submission of a more detailed visual analysis. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: So that’s a permissive submission anyway? 37 38 Michael Harvey: Yes, and I didn’t require them to submit it. 39 40 Samantha Cabe: Ok, so you agree with those? 41 42 James Bryan: Yes. There’s a few things that are truly non applicable. If the UDO makes it a conditional 43 statement, if it says, “If this, and that…” then it’s not applicable, the Board doesn’t have to make a n 44 affirmative yes or no, or they can just say yes it was met because it was condit ional. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 47 48 Michael Harvey: On page 125, visual impact assessment; again, I made the determination it’s not required 49