BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 5 of 68 I would like to call you attention to page 54 and 55, we have staff and neighborhood comments arising out of the 1 balloon test and the neighborhood information meeting that was conducted at the same time. The concerns staff heard 2 was that the tower would be visually intrusive to the area, it would have a negative impact on adjacent property values, 3 and several property owners expressed concern that it was unnecessary development. Several local residents 4 expressed concern of electromagnetic radiation being generated from the t owers. A general feeling that the tower was 5 just unwarranted in this particular area of the county. The applicant, who was at the neighborhood meeting, will 6 respond with their responses to these various concerns. I will remind the board that this is a quasi-judicial decision; 7 your decisions will be made from the sworn testimony and competent material evidence into the record. 8 9 Larry Wright: I have a couple of questions. On page 54, in the first paragraph, it states, “permit to erect 129 foot tall 10 tower with a four foot lighting pole”. That is not a pole with a light but a lightning rod? 11 12 Michael Harvey: As we also pointed out in this abstract, measurement for required setbacks is from 120 foot monopole 13 not the lightning rod. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: We will have the ability to ask you questions? 16 17 Michael Harvey: Most certainly. The only time in this hearing you don’t get to ask questions is when you close the 18 public hearing. 19 20 Larry Wright: Item 3 on page 56, the plan to be submitted in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the 21 use is in compliance with it. Could you define that? 22 23 Michael Harvey: If you are quoting Section 5.32. (a) 2 which are the general standards that all Spe cial Use Permits 24 must adhere to, these are the standards that the staff does not make recommendations on as they come based on 25 evidence and sworn testimony provided at the hearing and they are specifically that the use will maintain or promote the 26 public health safety or general welfare. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and the 27 location, character, use if developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony in which it is to be located and 28 the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county involved in these regulations. What 29 you will have to ascertain is that the tower, as proposed, will not be out of character with the area, is consistent with the 30 overall growth and development plan of the county, it’s in harmony with the area in terms of it not being visually 31 intrusive. I will remind the board that the telecommunication facilities are permitted in every residential zoning district of 32 the county subject to higher criteria established in Section 5.8 of the UDO and on the issuance of the SU P, either Class 33 A or Class B depending on the height. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: In Section 5.10.8 (b) specifically subsections 4(b) 4 that you had referenced in your notes on page 36 55; I believe this particular proposed tower is within the half mile of an existing m onopole, is that correct? 37 38 Michael Harvey: Correct. 39 40 Samantha Cabe: In the UDO, do we have a definition of what “adequate coverage” means? Whether the coverage by 41 locating the service on an existing wireless telecommunication support structure is adequate? 42 43 Michael Harvey: There is no technical definition in the Ordinance. Part of the reason is because state law no longer 44 permits us to require evidence on business decisions. As you recall, maybe four years ago, section 5.10(a) was much 45 more extensive and expansive. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Is the adequate qualifier in that paragraph, adequate to meet the business decision or adequate to 48 meet the county Comprehensive Plan and purposes we have defined in the UDO? 49 50