Browse
Search
BOA minutes 121216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
BOA minutes 121216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:14:19 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 9:58:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 121216
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
Approved 3113117 <br />1 Michael Harvey: Well before we go on to the applicant's witness I'd like our telecommunications <br />2 consultant to reiterate the testimony that was offered at the December hearing, concerning not <br />3 only our ordinance but state law requirements, with respect to processing location for <br />4 telecommunication towers. If it pleases the Board. <br />5 <br />6 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Would you state your name and that you've sworn for the record? <br />7 <br />8 Rusty Monroe: Yeah, I was sworn in last time. <br />9 <br />10 Samantha Cabe: And your name? Just for the transcript. <br />11 <br />12 Rusty Monroe: Rusty Monroe. <br />13 <br />14 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. <br />15 <br />16 Rusty Monroe: I commend the opposition on their choice of experts whose reputation precedes <br />17 him. Well known. The problem or the issue really is what the state law allows. I understand the <br />18 desire and in point of fact I might, in certain circumstances, agree that the state law prohibits the <br />19 community from requiring the company to investigate the feasibility of attaching to anything other <br />20 than existing or previously approved wireless support structures. And that's in 352... it's going to <br />21 be 153A- 349.52(c)(2). <br />22 <br />23 Samantha Cabe: (c)(2) you said? <br />24 <br />25 Rusty Monroe: The other thing that I wanted to point out, and by the way as I said I might prefer it <br />26 differently, I totally disagree with state law on a personal basis, but the law is what the law is. The <br />27 issue of them providing, the company providing, proof to counter this; the County does not have <br />28 the authority to, under the same provision effectively, to require that kind of evidence or proof. 1 <br />29 might like it personally, I might prefer it personally, but if you don't like it talk to your legislatures. <br />30 <br />31 John Price: May I ask a question? <br />32 <br />33 Rusty Monroe: Yes. <br />34 <br />35 John Price: I don't know if you're finished or not, but what is the definition of a wireless support <br />36 structure? <br />37 <br />38 Rusty Monroe: I'd have to look it up on the County Ordinance to see what their definition is. <br />39 <br />40 John Price: I believe that the County Ordinance is broad enough to encompass any structure that <br />41 will support the wireless facility necessary in order to satisfy the need. <br />42 <br />43 Samantha Cabe: Is it any support structure or previously approved wireless support structure? <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 Rusty Monroe: That's the issue, is no existing or previously approved wireless support structure... <br />47 As I said, I happen to personally disagree with that. <br />48 <br />49 Jackie Hicks: And I think where we have some issues is the Unified Development Ordinance <br />50 doesn't necessarily coincide with the state law. <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 121 of 156 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.