BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 22 applicant contained in attachment 2, staff testimony this evening. And we have made it an affirmative 1 finding. Fences and walls; we are making an affirmative finding both in the application attachment 2 and the 2 site plan show fences and walls, not only existing but proposed. The tower is structurally designed to 3 support additional users; we will refer you to the supplemental information specific with the structural 4 analysis reports completed and August of 2010 and April of 2014 showing that there are multiple 5 opportunities for additional to be erected on the tower. To minimize the number of antenna arrays the 6 County may require the use of dual mode antennas; I have made a finding of N/A, there are no antennas 7 proposed as part of this application. It is objective and as t here are no antennas proposed we’ve said that 8 the findings N/A in this particular case. Page 131, Structures shall be galvanized and/or painted with a rust -9 preventive paint of an appropriate color to harmonize with the surroundings; we’re going to refer yo u to the 10 supplemental information, original SUP application and the recorded SUP. Information’s contained within 11 these documents indicating how the tower complies with the standard. The next standard, both the wireless 12 telecommunications support structure and any and all accessory or associated telecommunication 13 equipment and related facilities shall maximize the use of building materials, colors and textures designed 14 to blend with the structure to which it may be affixed and/or to harmonize with the natura l surroundings; I’m 15 going to refer you to the site plan that’s been submitted as well as the supplemental information we have 16 provided you as documenting in compliance with the standard. Next, on page 132, antennas shall be flush 17 mounted; again I’m going to refer you to the original SUP application file and the structural analyses 18 provided. They provide detail that the antennas that are erected on the tower are flush mounted. Lighting; 19 staff is recommending the finding of this provision in N/A. The tower is not going to have to be illuminated 20 based on current FAA or FCC standards or guidelines, it is not legally required as part of this application 21 proposal because the tower is not going to be required to be illuminated and the application site plan does 22 not indicate that they’re going to installing street lighting in or around the driveway. So that’s our 23 recommended finding. 24 25 James Bryan: I think that this one is 50/50. Lighting has 4 sub parts. The vast majority of them say that 26 where the… So all of this is applicable. And some of them say where the feds require you to do it, you have 27 to do it this way and then there are some parts where if you have lighting it’s going to have to be done this 28 way. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: So I understand what you’re saying and I gu ess what… Correct me if I’m wrong, but 31 because the towers already erected and we know that the feds are not requiring lighting because the 32 tower’s under 200 feet, is that why you’re saying it’s not applicable? 33 34 Michael Harvey: Correct. I’m hanging my hat on Q sub section 2, if lighting is legally required or proposed 35 the applicant shall provide a detailed plan for sufficient lighting that’s unobtrusive and offensive in effect as 36 permissible under state and federal regulations. So, lighting is not required b ecause the tower’s under 200 37 feet and it’s not proposed. And that’s my rationale for making it N/A finding. And then sub section 3; for any 38 facility with lighting is required, this facility is not required to have lighting. 39 40 James Bryan: The … it’s for that and for any reason road lights are attached. So if they want to attach lights 41 for their own, so their guys can look at it while they work… 42 43 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 44 45 Michael Harvey: The last standard in this case, the tower and antenna will not result in a si gnificant adverse 46 impact on the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor; the application we’re 47 currently reviewing the site plan, the property vicinity map in attachment 1 as well as we’re going to refer 48 you to the original SUP application file indicating the applicants met their burden. Page 133, facilities, 49