Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 3113117 <br />1 Samantha Cabe: You can summarize the (B) and the (1) that you've already read in the. The Big <br />2 (B) 1. <br />3 <br />4 James Bryan: Alright. It's that the Applicants shall be required to adhere to the following overall <br />5 policies and desired goals; Promoting and encouraging wherever possible the following: B) the <br />6 placement, height, and quantity of wireless telecommunication towers and equipment in such a <br />7 manner including but not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques to <br />8 minimize adverse aesthetics and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other <br />9 facilities adjacent to surrounding and in generally the same area as the requested location as <br />10 such wireless telecommunication support structure, which shall mean using the least visually and <br />11 physically intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impractical under the facts <br />12 and circumstances. Again, I would urge the Board that it's also past the circumstances it talks <br />13 about commercial technology that so applied as a standard. <br />14 <br />15 Barry Katz: Ms. Goode addressed this issue tonight, in that in order for it to be commercially <br />16 practical there was no way on a 199 -foot tower that you could make this tower any prettier than it <br />17 is. But they made an application, we'll see whether it's a valid application, but they've made an <br />18 application to put this tower up and I can't imagine this tower could be rejected because there is <br />19 no way to make this thing prettier than it is. <br />20 <br />21 Samantha Cabe: I think we would reject it if there was a way to make it prettier and they didn't do <br />22 it. Or if it was commercially feasible and they didn't do it. <br />23 <br />24 Barry Katz: Right. <br />25 <br />26 Samantha Cabe: I would say we heard testimony or there's evidence within the application that <br />27 the stealth technology, mono -pine, just were not feasible. That they did consider it and it was not <br />28 technologically feasible or commercially practical to implement either of those technologies and <br />29 standard does say that they must do it wherever possible, and technologically feasible and <br />30 commercially practical. Does anyone have a motion for me whether to find that they have met this <br />31 burden or not? <br />32 <br />33 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt staff's recommendation in regards to 5.10.8 (13)(1)(b) based <br />34 upon the Applicants presentation that it considered stealth technology and it was not logically <br />35 feasible or commercially practical. Seconded by Matt Hughes. <br />36. <br />37 VOTE: Unanimous <br />38 <br />39 Samantha Cabe: We will find that the Applicant has met that burden. Going down to the last item <br />40 on this page. Location of wireless support structures 5.10.8(B)(4)(b). The... If you could help... <br />41 <br />42 James Bryan: That's on, you're like where the abundance one... <br />43 <br />44 Samantha Cabe: Yes, on page 5, the third one down. Is that it? <br />45 <br />46 James Bryan: It's the third and the fourth one so. And Michael 's stops at (13)(4)(b). <br />47 <br />48 Samantha Cabe: Which includes all the little subsections? <br />49 <br />50 James Bryan: Yeah, and he split it up into (13)(1)(2) and then (13)(3). <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 147 of 156 <br />