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 />Barry Katz: Well I propose that we submit Staff's recommendation and approve that the Applicant <br />has met this particular standard. <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok, and the Staff's proposed finding is that there are currently no wireless <br />telecommunication towers or alternative structures of sufficient height for co- location in search <br />area, leaving no alternative to constructing a new tower. Is that the proposed finding? <br />Barry Katz: That's the proposed finding. Ok. Sure, that is my proposed finding. <br />Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff's recommendation and approve that the Applicant has <br />met the burden under 5.10.8 (b) (1) (a) Seconded by Matt Hughes. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Samantha Cabe: Same analysis under the next section. That the Applicant has met the burden of <br />showing that its plan to build the tower is promoting and encouraging placement to minimize <br />adverse aesthetic impacts. Staff's proposed finding is that it will be under 200 -feet and will be <br />made of material intended to blend with the sky, will be located at the rear of the large property, <br />it's set back 1,000 -feet from the adjacent public right of way, will be located on a densely wooded <br />property, in a not densely populated area that is separated from large residential developments. <br />The Opponent argues that we should find no in regard to that finding and is that in the same? <br />James Bryan: That's in page 5. The first one. <br />Samantha Cabe: The Opponent proposes that the Applicant doesn't utilize any stealth technology <br />or camouflage techniques and cites the testimony of Ben Levitan on commercially practical use of <br />alternative structures and technologies avoiding necessity for having to erect the tower. Is there <br />any? <br />Barry Katz: Well we heard expert witness opposing Mr. Levitan's observation for this particular <br />site. Mr. Levitan made very good points but as we see, well, as was proposed by the Applicant, <br />there really was no practical way aside from building this 199 -foot tower. <br />Karen Barrows: Well I think we heard Mr. Gwen. We heard the expert. And we've heard neighbors <br />that have said, aesthetically, they don't think it's positioned to minimize visibility. <br />Samantha Cabe: We did hear that the testimony how it is not aesthetically pleasing that will not be <br />aesthetically pleasing we also heard testimony regarding the infeasibility of the stealth technology <br />for this particular tower and the problems with the mono -pine, that it would look even worse. <br />Matt Hughes: I think it is what it is and they're doing what's possible given the specifications of the <br />cell tower and how much you would possibly camouflage it. <br />Samantha Cabe: Let's see if TowerCom addressed this in their... This is TowerCom's sort of <br />response but they didn't address this one on theirs. Mr. Bryan, could you read the section of the <br />Unified Development Ordinance to be 5.10.8 (b)(1)(b)? <br />James Bryan: Yes ma'am. Would you like the (B) and the (1) again for a refresher? <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 <br />Page 146 of 156 <br />