BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 47 of 68 CTS report until today. This has been going on for months. It makes it hard for me to adjust that is why I adjusted at 1 hearing tonight to say if I didn’t get the report until today it is hard for me to address the stealthing issue as proactively if 2 that is the consultant’s concern. That is why I came in tonight with respect to stealthing. One is to do the close mount 3 antennas on a single pole or do a monopine. That is stealthing that is recognized with your ordinance and certainly with 4 Durham County’s cause they require that so we are will to accept that. What are those to stealthing but again, I didn’t 5 know about that concern from CTS until today. There was a lot of mention about the top half of the tower and again, all 6 that was viewable from the Lake Hogan Farm’s property. Same comments and it was not the adverse impact. The 7 bottom line is we agree with what your staff said. We agree that the statute says that you have look at the search ring 8 and what is available in the search ring. I am not open to questions about the business of the applicant. We have 9 presented ample evidence as to why the existing tower within the search ring will not work it is just too short and too low 10 in elevations. Higher the elevation is the tower that would work better and meet the objectives not work better but meet 11 the objectives that T-Mobile has located otherwise it won’t meet their objectives and it doesn’t help and that is certainly 12 in keeping with the ordinance and that is where the facts lie and that is what the experienced staff says and I act that 13 you rule based on the fact not the emotion but you have to look at the facts and the law that is bef ore you and if you 14 really look at that in terms of the expert testimony, you have no choice but to approve the application as presented. 15 Thank you. 16 17 Beth Bega: Can I say something? 18 19 Tom Johnson: I thought we were through… 20 21 Beth Bega: It is just a statement that you made. You knew that …He didn’t just find this out. 22 23 Bob Hornik: I am aware of the time. A few points. First, the board can ask Mr. Harvey exactly what he said and what 24 he meant by _____ which Mr. Johnson just talked about. About three points I want to make. First, I am looking at 25 Section 5.10.8(b)3.0 of the Ordinance and it says that all applications shall contain a demonstration that the wireless 26 support structure ___ as to have the least visually intrusive effect reasonably possible and thereby have the least 27 adverse visual affect on the environment and its character, on existing vegetation and on the residences and the area 28 of the telecommunications tower. May I submit to the board that on that criteria alone, this board can and should deny 29 the application. The application had not been submitted complies with that ordinance. It is a requirement of the 30 ordinance. You don’t have to already waive it. They have to make that demonstration and they did not. I have my 31 proposed finding I will hand them out to the board. 32 33 Michael Harvey: For the record, this will be Exhibit 2. 34 35 Bob Hornik: These are my proposed findings based on the evidence in the record and what has been demonstrated to 36 the board tonight. I agree to a certain extent with Mr. Johnson that says when there is case law out there that says 37 when a use is allowed in a district for a conditional permit or special use permit that is considered to be harmonious with 38 the district but what the case law goes on to say is that ______ provided that the application otherwise complies with all 39 the other requirements and that is where this application falls apart. It falls apart on the issue of complying otherwise 40 with the requirements of the ordinance. I can go through a laundry list of provisions in the ordinance that I submit have 41 not been satisfied by the application, the applicant and the presentation tonight. I won’t for the sake of time go through 42 and reach each of the sections of the ordinances but summarized in my proposed findings. I would ask the board to 43 consider that. I would ask the board to consider Section 5.10.8 (B) 1 (a) and (b) of the UDO which are the overall policy 44 and desired goals when you listen or review the evidence that has presented and ___ the arguments that were 45 presented you have to consider them in context when you do the prism of ____ policies so paragraph B says the 46 placement height and quantity of wireless communication towers and equipment all applicants are required to adhere to 47 the following overall policies and goals. The overall policies aren’t goals for SUP for wireless communication s upport 48 structures shall be promoted, encouraging wherever possible the following: the placement height and quantity of 49 wireless communication towers such a manner but not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage 50