BOA minutes 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3113117 1 2 Karen Barrows: Can we take a short break? 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Alright, we're going to take a short recess to go to the restroom and then we'll 5 hear our closing arguments, if you want to do closing arguments. Is there any more evidence for 6 either? 7 8 Laura Goode: I'm just going to enter some documentary evidence to rebut some of the statements 9 that were made by the opponent. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Ok, we'll address that when we get back. Thank you. 12 13 Break 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Ok are we ready to get started? Alright and before we do get started I have the 16 opponents position on applicant's compliance with the County Unified Development Ordinance 17 requirements where they've set out their proposed findings I believe on all of your requirements. 18 Does the applicant have an opposing document like this? 19 20 Laura Goode: I do, and if I could... 21 22 Samantha Cabe: Just so I could have them both so we can all have them both. 23 24 (General multiple comments) 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Before we get started with closing we do have Board member Katz has a 27 clarification problem regarding the statement submitted by Amber Corbin that we had allowed into 28 the record earlier in the proceeding. 29 30 Barry Katz: There seemed to be an ambiguity in communications from Ms. Corbin about whether 31 or not the right of way road had to pass through her property or was adjacent to her property. And 32 my first impression was that she actually had property adjacent to that access road and then she 33 implies that she has to approve right of way and she's absolutely denying right of way, so it would 34 be important to know, in fact, whether she has any kind of leverage in this situation. Michael Harvey: Well I don't know if I'm going to be able to answer your question from a leverage stand point, what I will tell you is that based on the information that I have at my disposal sitting here, this is a private road. The property goes to the center line of the private road. You have three emails from Ms. Corbin that we handed you. One dated January the 22nd of 2017, 2:48 PM. Essentially making several arguments that there's a public safety issue, I know that's not your question but just to summarize the information to the proposed use of the driveway along that property is contrary to not in harmony with the area that the tower's proposed to be located. And then finally I think your question; TowerCom does not have legal access of my property... private property access to the proposed tower. The argument being made is that this is private access easement, which she is a co -owner of that easement. The easement was granted for a very specific purpose. The second email is same day with a time stamp of 2:58 PM that shows or provides a summary of various emails between TowerCom enterprises, Staff, and Ms. Corbin on access management issues where obviously they have an opinion and she has an opinion that differs. It is her research in that they don't have a right to use her portion of the right of way for access. OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 129 of 156