Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />Approved 3113117 <br />Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff's recommendations on page 149 of specific submittal <br />requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Samantha Cabe: On page 150. Are there any of those Unified Development Ordinance Submittal <br />requirements that the Opponent contends have not been met? <br />James Bryan: Yeah, I found the Applicant is supplementing the first one. The opponent has an <br />alternative for the fifth one. <br />Samantha Cabe: The first one and the... Alright, so the Opponent has submitted a supplement <br />with regard to application for the co- location of antennas. <br />James Bryan: The Applicant. (long pause) It looks like they're saying. They're adding letters <br />dated December 12th between Carolina Telecommunications Services LLC, Michael Harvey ...... <br />Samantha Cabe: And was that submitted at some point? <br />James Bryan: I don't know. The December 12th one from Carolina Telecommunications. <br />Laura Goode: It was introduced into the record in the first hearing. <br />Jackie Hicks: Yes. <br />Samantha Cabe: On December the 12th? At our prior hearing? Oh yes, ok. Additional affidavit <br />number 4. Do you know about that? Ok. Staff has recommended a finding of yes, that they have <br />met that submittal requirement pending condition of numbers 8 and 9 in the abstract, which are on <br />pages 163. Do I have a motion to find that the Applicant has met their burden of submitting the <br />submittal requirement under 5.8.10(a)(2), which relates to applications for the co- location of <br />antennas? <br />Motion made by Barry Katz that the Applicant has successfully complied with the co- location <br />requirement obligation in 5.8.10(a)(2). Seconded by Matt Hughes. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok, motion carries. And then the fifth one down, that the Applicant has provided <br />evidence that the Applicant has investigate the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment on <br />an existing wireless support structure, and the Opponent has proposed that... I'm not sure, do you <br />see that they? I'm not seeing where they opposed that one or had an alternate finding, they <br />certainly argued it but. <br />James Bryan: So it's on page 5 1 believe, the second line of page 5 5.10.8(b)(3)(d). <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok and the Opponent has asked us to find no with the regard to that arguing that <br />there is no listing in the application of other structures capable of handling wireless equipment <br />such as electrical transmission towers, water towers, buildings, or other structures. The testimony <br />of Ben Levitan, the opponents expert on such structures and the use thereof to satisfy identified <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 142 of 156 <br />