BOA minutes 061013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/8/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 3 of 92 1 Michael Harvey: I have been duly sworn in. On page 7, we have the abstract, on page 13 there is 2 the property map denoting the parcel (where the tower is proposed for development), on page 15-24, 3 we have staff comments, on pages 25-38 we have notification materials and certifications of mailing 4 as well as sign postings, and on pages 39-96 we have the findings of fact and recommendations by 5 staff. I would like to go over the basic points of the application, let the applicant make their case, and 6 review the findings of fact with you. Once the public hearing is closed the applicant, staff, or any 7 other interested party will not be able to answer any questions of the Board of Adjustment or speak to 8 the Board of the Adjustment. I would like to introduce into the record copies of the Orange County 9 Unified Development Ordinance as well as the Comprehensive Plan with respect to this case. I also 10 have an Exhibit submitted this afternoon by our telecommunications consultant, The Center for 11 Municipal Solutions, which I would like to hand out as Exhibit 1. This replaces The Center for 12 Municipal Solutions letter contained in your packet on pages 15-16. The recommendations for 13 approval have not changed but some of the issues have been modified. We believe the 14 recommended conditions still address these issues. American Tower and AT&T Mobility have 15 proposed the erection of a telecommunication tower on property owned by Michael Fagan whose 16 mailing address is 7505 New Sharon Church Road. The particular parcel of property, I will call your 17 attention to the vicinity map which is on page 13, this is the site of a former telecommunication tower 18 that was decommissioned several years ago. The applicant is seeking the authorization to erect a 19 new tower. On page 8 and 9 in the abstract, this application has been submitted in accordance with 20 the requirements of Sections 2.7, 5.2.2, 5.32, 5.10.8 of the Orange County Unified Development 21 Ordinance. The applicant will be leasing a 100x100 foot area on the northwest portion of this parcel 22 and there will be a 60x60 foot fenced in compound. This (information) is also detailed within their 23 narrative. It is contained in their document packet. We have provided you with our initial comments 24 beginning on page 9. The County has fairly rigorous standards detailed within 5.10.8 concerning 25 location of telecommunication facilities. We have a preference of location. I would stipulate at the 26 onset of this hearing is that there are no preselected sites, no County owned properties, County 27 leased sites or any other parcel property within the hierarchy with the criteria to locate a 28 telecommunication tower. We have deemed that this particular parcel of property is viable given the 29 lack of County owned or leased property in the area. We have provided you with comments from the 30 County staff with respect to this development project. You will note the County staff has indicated 31 their favorability to the application. That is Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Fire Marshall’s 32 office, Environmental Health, staff of DEAPR (Department of Agriculture, Environment, Parks and 33 Recreation). We also have correspondence from the Center for Municipal Solutions, our 34 telecommunications consultant. As you will remember from past special use permit hearings, staff 35 provides recommendations which we will go over later with respect to this application’s compliance 36 with submittal standards. We will not offer a recommendation on the applicant’s compliance with 37 general standards detailed within 5.3.2.a2 of the UDO specifically that the use will maintain or 38 promote public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and 39 operated according to the plan as submitted. The use will maintain or enhance the value of 40 contiguous property and the location and character of the use according to the plan submitted will be 41 in harmony within the area which it is to be located. The use is in compliance with the plan for the 42 physical development of the County as embodied within the regulations of the Comprehensive Plan. 43 You are required to make your findings based on the material evidence entered into the record during 44 this hearing. On page 10, we identified various policies and goals with respect to the adopted 2030 45 Comprehensive Plan which has been entered into the record that we believe support the 46 development of a telecommunication facility not only in the County but on this property. I will state for 47 the record we have not received any public comments expressing support or concern relating to this 48 proposal, specifically the proposal at 7444 Bill Poole Road. This is a quasi-judicial hearing in that you 49 will be accepting sworn testimony and evidence into the record and that is what you are basing your 50 decisions on. Your decisions are subject to appeal as described in the Unified Development 51 Ordinance within 30 days that has been made part of the record. I would like to turn it over to the 52 applicant and allow them to present their application. 53