BOA minutes 061013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/8/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 77 of 92 application as required by the UDO. As you know, we are not making any recommendations on the 1 general findings of fact on page 100. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and 2 general welfare; the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; the location and 3 character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, is in harmony with the area in 4 which it is to be located and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We don’t make 5 recommendations on those. On page 100, we have identified several key components of the 6 Comprehensive Plan leaving credence to the notion of allowing telecommunications facilities on this 7 property and the rural areas of the county. Unlike the last application, we have received numerous 8 phone calls from adjoining property owners related to this proposal expressing concern over the 9 development of a tower. There have been complaints over the lack of notice that in notifying 10 individuals of this hearing, there have been complaints that the local residents have not had sufficient 11 time to secure the services of necessary experts to refute the application, and there have been 12 accusations that the project will have a negative impact on the value of adjacent property. There 13 have been complaints that local residents will be able to see the tower. This is a quasi-judicial 14 hearing where you are accepting evidence as sworn testimony and you have to base the decision to 15 approve or deny the application on that sworn testimony, competent material, substantial evidence 16 introduced into the record. I would like to enter into the record an approved copy of the Orange 17 County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as our abstract. 18 19 Larry Wright: Is this a tree farm? 20 21 Michael Harvey: No sir. 22 23 Larry Wright: If the property is maintained as it states then, if in the findings this property does have 24 to be maintained as presented in the application therefore, they cannot log it. 25 26 Michael Harvey: The current property owners, the Yows, cannot do anything that would have a 27 negative impact on the approval of this tower. For example, if there are areas (of the property) that 28 are designated as being preserved, vegetation being preserved, to meet a land use buffer 29 requirement, that area has to be maintained but obviously their continued use of the property as a 30 farm is guaranteed by state law and there is a condition that states that the approval of the cell tower 31 will in no way, shape or form limit their ability to continue to use the property as a farm use. 32 33 Larry Wright: Board members have any other questions, Mr. Harvey, the applicant’s attorney? 34 35 Karen Kemerait: I am an attorney with the law firm of Styers, Kemerait and Mitchell. I apologize in 36 advance for repeating some of the same information but the board knows this is a separate 37 application so I will have to be somewhat redundant. I will go briefly to the background materials. 38 There have been numerous changes in technology for the wireless industry that effected carriers and 39 wireless communications devices are much more than telephone systems in today’s modern world. 40 There are more benefits and services that are available such as convenience so that calls can be 41 made from any location and people can work remotely from homes and offices. One of the benefits 42 and services would be a safety benefit so that telecommunications customers could use their 43 telecommunications devices to access 911 or emergency services at times when they might have car 44 trouble or during disasters such as hurricanes when the land line systems may be down. Also, the 45 most recent is connectedness to the world that has been available through the advent of smart 46 phones. With the availability of messaging, internet, text, emails, data, phones, video, etc. the 47 technology changes have been happening very rapidly. The public has been both expecting and 48 demanding that these services become available to them. I think it is very important to communities 49 from an economic development perspective that such wireless telecommunication services are made 50 available. As I previously mentioned Orange County has not had a new telecommunications tower 51 approved since 2009 therefore, the telecommunications infrastructure has not kept pace with the 52 rapid improvement in technology that is required when additional infrastructure is necessary. 53