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 needs are the evidence that they propose support the finding of no. And they have also set forth <br />2 the General Statute that we discussed earlier I believe. <br />3 <br />4 James Bryan: And Madam Chair, if you'd like I've got the Unified Development Ordinance, which <br />5 is a little lengthy. <br />6 <br />7 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you would read the Unified Development Ordinance for us? <br />8 <br />9 James Bryan: And so Michael's just does it to (b)(3)(d) the opponent specifying (d) subsection for <br />10 that so... Evidence that the Applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed <br />11 equipment on existing wireless support structure. Such evidence shall consist of the listing of all <br />12 wireless telecommunications support structure within a 2 -mile radius of the proposed wireless <br />13 support structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utility poles, and other <br />14 structures in the vicinity in the proposed vicinity that are technically feasible for utilization by the <br />15 Applicant to fill all or a substantial portion of the telecommunication service need identified by the <br />16 Applicant pursuant to section 5.10.8(a)(1)(s). Documents shall be submitted at the time of <br />17 application filing that indicates the Applicant's ability or inability to co- locate on the identified <br />18 towers and reasons why. <br />20 Samantha Cabe: Alright, and Staff's recommendation of finding that the Applicant has complied <br />21 with that provision of the Unified Development Ordinance are the application package tabs 4, 5, 6, <br />22 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1. So that would include the network objective statement, Mr. <br />23 Haughney, who we also heard testimony from, the search ring photographs are tab 5, the 4G <br />24 capacity trigger sectors behind tab 6, and the... I can't remember what you call these but the <br />25 maps that show change in coverage with the proposed tower behind tab 7, and then 21, which is <br />26 a letter from Chase Real Estate Services. It has a copy of the Unified Development Ordinance <br />27 that Mr. Bryan just read. So the letter behind tab 21 states, "No tower or other suitable facility <br />28 exists within the area where the equipment is to be placed on the tower will function in its intended <br />29 manner. There is one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2 -mile radius of the <br />30 proposed site" and that was their search ring that they spoke about in the paragraph above the, <br />31 "This wireless telecommunication support structure is not within the search area for the tower. <br />32 Verizon Wireless is already co- located on this wireless telecommunication support structure <br />33 shown as the Farrington Mill Site in the map of existing Verizon Wireless sites. There are no <br />34 wireless telecommunications support structures within the search area and no alternative <br />35 structures of sufficient height within the search area feasible for co- location. Therefore, a new <br />36 telecommunication tower is required. Please refer to the search ring map attached here too as <br />37 Exhibit 5. Please also refer to the map of existing Verizon Wireless site attached here too as <br />38 Exhibit 6 ". So that is the statement that the Applicant contends is evidence that they have <br />39 investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment. And our Ordinance says that they <br />40 shall provide those lists. This letter behind number 22 states that they are providing this <br />41 information but that they are also submitting that they. It remains their position that the North <br />42 Carolina General Statutes control the review of this application but they're submitting the <br />43 information requested pursuant to the Unified Development Ordinance in the interest of time. So it <br />44 sounds like they're arguing that the Statute may not require this such specifics but they provided <br />45 us with this letter. Does anyone have any discussion or? <br />46 <br />47 Barry Katz: I proposed that we accept the Staff's recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the <br />48 evidence that the Applicant provided so listed. <br />49 <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 143 of 156 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.