BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 6 of 68 Michael Harvey: I would look at it from the sta ndpoint that you allowed to locate towers as defined in the UDO within 1 one half mile of each other if the existing tower cannot address your needs or if you would have to, for example, you 2 would have to elevate a tower to accommodate your need. While I know I am giving general answers, part of that is 3 because it’s part of the applicant’s testimony as to why this particular facility won’t meet his need. 4 5 Larry Wright: On page 56, 7D, “Objective PS-T-7, “preferred” as to whose preference? 6 7 Michael Harvey: As you know the county has adopted a Master Telecommunication s Plan identifying approximately 14 8 sites that the BOCC has identified properties that were a primary choice for the location of a telecommuting facility. 9 There is no property in these areas that is a preferred choice. 10 11 Larry Wright: So this happens to be the preferred location of Orange County? 12 13 Michael Harvey: I wouldn’t say that, I would say there is no preferred property that has been identified in the Master 14 Telecommunications Plan that serves the applicant’s needs, therefore, he is coming to petition this board for a SUP to 15 erect a tower on this property and it is his belief that he has sufficient documentation and evidence proving that the 16 issuance permitting this property is consistent with the UDO. 17 18 Jeff Schmitt: In several pieces of correspondences, you have indicated some initial deficiencies in filing the applicant 19 and then in a letter on May 15, the fourth paragraph you say, “Previous correspondence, specifically a letter dated 20 March 30 identified deficiencies for the most part, these have been corrected”. So the p ackage we have in front of us is 21 complete in all of the various technical requirements that the county needs to approve this? 22 23 Michael Harvey: In Attachment 4, on March 30, we rejected the application outright identifying several deficiencies. 24 The applicant submitted a revised copy of the application. With that offer, a letter on May 15, on page 137, indicating 25 that while the applicant had met the submittal requirement, we believed there were issues that needed additional 26 clarification. We have identified those herein. In your packet you have a letter dated May 29, from Mr. Thomas 27 Johnson, the attorney for the applicant where he responds to our correspondence. 28 29 Tom Johnson: Attorney with the law firm of Nexsen Pruet in Raleigh and I represent Skyway Towers and T-Mobile in 30 connection with this application for a special use permit for a tower on Kerley Road. I appreciate your time tonight and I 31 would like to thank your staff and Michael. The entire staff has been good to work with. There were challenges earlier 32 on with this site. We had to do a balloon test under your ordinance. We attempted to do that at an earlier time but the 33 weather would not cooperate. If it is too windy, it won’t set up like it’s supposed to and it didn’t but Michael was nice 34 enough that he went out there to meet with any members of the public that were there. The neighborhood meeting was 35 in conjunction with the balloon. We then rescheduled t he balloon test and had a balloon test at another community 36 meeting in conjunction with that balloon testing, got it successfully completed and it is part of your package you have 37 with those pictures and I will go over those in a moment. So we did go thro ugh that process and in this case ended up 38 having two community meetings so we have met more than would ordinarily occur because of the way it came out in 39 terms of not being able to do the balloon test. A question earlier that was asked on page 124 of your record, it does say 40 that staff has concluded that we comply with the standards that are set forth in the ordinance so that clearly states that 41 we have worked out, we have worked through the earlier issues and gotten the information together to the point that 42 staff agrees that we meet the standards that are set forth in the UDO. Obviously that decision making in the final 43 issuance of the SUP is up to you as a board and you make that determination based upon what the staff has 44 recommended. As part of that process and not to confuse matters and to help a little bit of the understanding, I know 45 Ms. Cabe asked some questions regarding looking at an alternative location and what that means. The way the law 46 exists now in North Carolina, there are two standards, not really two standards but you have your state law, Wireless 47 Communications Act that has very specific requirements within it and you have your local UDO. Those aren’t always in 48 harmony with each other but the way we operate in North Carolina, the state law controls to a degree the local law, it is 49 in conflict, there is a priority in terms of state law first and the local ordinance second. I have a copy of the state law; 50