Browse
Search
BOA minutes 060815
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2015
>
BOA minutes 060815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:15:29 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:22:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/8/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 060815
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 50 of 68 <br /> 1 <br />Michael Harvey: They did present the search ring. Tom and I have a difference of opinion. I would say he did submit it 2 <br />and he did submit a response to my original concern. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Samantha Cabe: Can you tell me where your original packet was documented in our packet. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Michael Harvey: It was in the original letter we wrote on March 30, the questions we asked were basically were 7 <br />basically was he identifying every tower within the identifiable search ring where the dist ance properly referenced, were 8 <br />the radio points actually being provided as required and did the search ring really yield the viable number of properties 9 <br />that ought to be considered. Our ultimate questions that Tom and I had discussions offline where can y ou truly 10 <br />discount the Kerley Road existing site and obviously the testimony here this evening as we state in the abstract itself 11 <br />the argument provided by the RF engineer is the tower was too low and that was the whole testimony. On page 137, 12 <br />the May 15 letter, we had suggested that they provide addition assessment on the narrative on the Kerley Road site. 13 <br />Tom’s response was that they had chosen to add additional documentation in their Tab 26 and they would handle 14 <br />additional testimony here this evening to address my concern about search ring issues. And then obviously he quotes 15 <br />from the general statute as well. Part of the concern is that I am dredging on a business development component of 16 <br />this and he believes I am exceeding my authority. Continued reviewing Findings. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Tom Johnson: I accept the conditions so I don’t have any objections to the conditions that have been listed. We are 19 <br />find using the same design of the tower down the road if we using the monopine. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Larry Wright: Hearing none. I will close the public hearing. Are there any comments the board want to say? 22 <br /> 23 <br />Karen Barrows: I wanted to say that submitting what is required for the SUP in genera l was quite helpful so thank you 24 <br />Michael. 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.