Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 3113117 <br />1 value, and harmony for the area. So the submittal requirement should correlate some standard of <br />2 evaluation. So... <br />3 <br />4 Samantha Cabe: So in this particular finding that is in the submittal requirements on page 149 that <br />5 finding only relates to whether or not the statement was submitted. Not whether it actually meets <br />6 one of the big three? But just that we received that affidavit in the application package? Am I? <br />7 <br />8 James Bryan: I would agree with that. <br />9 <br />10 Samantha Cabe: So with regard to finding the second from the bottom on page 149 with <br />11 5.10.8(a)(1)(s) the opponent is asking that we find no with regard to that. But I believe, as a <br />12 submittal requirement we are determining whether or not a written affidavit stating why the <br />13 proposed site is necessary was received, not necessarily that we're evaluating the substance of <br />14 that affidavit at this point. So behind application tabs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1 Staff <br />15 has indicated that those are the documents that were received with the application. <br />16 <br />17 James Bryan: If I may? So the... In your chart it says about the affidavit. There is more text from <br />18 the Unified Development Ordinance. If you'd like I could read that entirely so that you could <br />19 determine for yourself what standard would be applied. <br />20 <br />21 Samantha Cabe: Sure, that might be helpful. <br />22 <br />23 James Bryan: Your written affidavit stating why, "the proposed site is necessary for the <br />24 communication service" for example, for coverage, capacity, offloading, etcetera. And a statement <br />25 that there are no existing alternative sites within the provided search ring and there are no <br />26 alternative technologies available, which would provide the proposed telecommunication service <br />27 need without the tower. <br />28 <br />29 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion as to whether or not they have met the standard of providing <br />30 such statements? <br />31 <br />32 Motion made by Karen Barrows that applicant has complied with the submittal requirement of <br />33 providing the documents that Mr. Bryan read into the record. Seconded by Matt Hughes. <br />34 <br />35 VOTE: Unanimous. <br />36 <br />37 Matt Hughes: It's 10:30. <br />38 <br />39 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do I have a motion to extend the meeting an additional 30 minutes? <br />40 <br />41 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting an additional 30- minutes. Seconded by Matt <br />42 Hughes. <br />43 <br />44 VOTE: Unanimous. <br />45 <br />46 Samantha Cabe: Alright, the meeting is extended to 11:00 pm. So the Board has found the <br />47 second finding from the bottom on page 149 that the Applicant has met that specific submittal <br />48 requirement with regard to the other submittal requirements listed on page 149. Do I have a <br />49 motion that the Board find in the affirmative that they have met those obligations based upon the <br />50 recommendations of Staff in the noted documents in the application? <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 141 of 156 <br />