BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 65 of 68 1 Samantha Cabe: Question to the attorney. Do we have to fill in these findings or only the ultimate requirements and 2 make findings that support the ultimate findings or do we have to go through all these things that staff has 3 recommended. 4 5 James Bryan: You have to make findings and conclusions for all of these but what the board has done in the past 6 have lumped all the submittal on es together with one comprehensive finding that was in the application packet that 7 was testified by the applicant staff testified to it. That is where all the submittal ones together. You have got either 8 the three general standards, harmony, appraisal and …. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: With these submittal standards, all we are looking for is did they address this either in their 11 application or testimony. We are not evaluating at this point whether they did minimize the visual intrusiveness. We 12 are just saying they addressed it in their application and testimony? 13 14 Jeff Schmitt: It is their opinion. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: I just don’t want us to weigh something we don’t have to weigh. 17 18 James Bryan: I would actually interpret submittal to be submittal. 19 20 Larry Wright: Correct. 21 22 MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to adopt the staff findings and add findings of yes to all the unanswered 23 questions by staff. Karen Barrows seconded. 24 VOTE Unanimous 25 26 Larry Wright: On page 123, Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). 27 28 MOTION made by David Blankfard that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare 29 if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and the impact analysis 30 and site plan. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 31 VOTE: 3-2 (Larry Wright and Samantha Cabe opposed) 32 33 Larry Wright: On page 123, Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). 34 35 MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to find the applicant failed to meet its burden with regard to proving that the use 36 will maintain or enhance the value of contagious property and I based that motion on the fact that the impact analysis 37 was submitted and evaluated only residential properties in a very regulated subdivision in Orange County and did not 38 consider any impact on a farming operation. It did not address any impact on a nursing home or another commercial 39 facility that might be in the area and also none of the comparables submitted in the Impact Analysis to locate the 40 tower in the front yard or in the direct view of any of the comparable properties. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 41 VOTE: 4-1 (David Blankfard opposed) 42 43 Larry Wright: On page 123, Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c). 44 45 MOTION made by Karen Barrows that the location and character of the use will not be in harmony with the area in 46 which it is to be located. 47 Friendly amendment made by David Blankfard stated based on the photos provided during the balloon test and th e 48 applicant has showed the tower in its location. 49