Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 3113117 <br />1 <br />2 Samantha Cabe: Page 148. Oh, ok. <br />3 <br />4 James Bryan: The second one, (a)(1)(f). <br />5 <br />6 Samantha Cabe: Alright. So with regard with the finding set forth on page 147 there appears to be <br />7 no opposition to those findings. Do I have a motion to approve the recommendations of Staff for <br />8 those use specifics submittal requirements set forth on page 147? <br />9 <br />10 Motion made by Karen Barrows to approve the recommendations of Staff for those use specifics <br />11 submittal requirements set forth on page 147. Seconded by Barry Katz. <br />12 <br />13 VOTE: Unanimous <br />14 <br />15 Samantha Cabe: And the motion would be from Ms. Barrows and the second from Mr. Katz. <br />16 Alright, on page 148 we do have an objection to the third one down, I believe. Second one down. <br />17 A statement indicating how the proposed tower will minimize visual intrusiveness to surrounding <br />18 properties in the area. The abstract attachment 5, the application packets tabs 8 and 13, and <br />19 narrative tab 1 include the evidence that support the Staff recommendation of a finding of yes. So. <br />20 <br />21 James Bryan: If I may? It's Opponents page 5, his last one there. The last item is the one that <br />22 correlates. <br />23 <br />24 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. And the opponent proposes that the correspondence between <br />25 council for opponents and council for TowerCom on plans timbering, not disclosed anywhere in <br />26 the application, have a potentially dramatic impact on visibility of proposed tower and impact on <br />27 property values. Testimony of Owen and Evan Gwen and Mike Ogburn would support a finding of <br />28 no. Does anyone on the Board have a motion with regard to what they believe the finding should <br />29 be, and the basis for that finding? <br />30 <br />31 Barry Katz: What I hear is that the timbering is not really germane to this application. Because it <br />32 has to do with property that's not being asked for right of way or for the use of this cell company. <br />33 So whatever happens with the timbering potential application has no bearing on whether the <br />34 approval or disapprove of this finding. Does anyone have anything else to say about that? <br />35 <br />36 Matt Hughes: I agree with your assessment Barry. <br />37 <br />38 Barry Katz: Yeah, that's what my understanding was, of what we heard. So I would propose that <br />39 we accept the Planning Department's Staff yes on 5.10.8(a)(1)(f). <br />40 <br />41 Samantha Cabe: And as a basis for that finding of yes, what would you propose the supporting <br />42 evidence would be? <br />43 <br />44 Barry Katz: That it's a rumor that deals with property that's not being applied for or influenced by <br />45 the application for the tower. <br />46 <br />47 Samantha Cabe: Anyone, anything further? Do I have a motion? <br />48 <br />49 James Bryan: If I may? Just for clarification, are you saying that the evidence presented by the <br />50 opposition is speculative in nature? <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 139 of 156 <br />