BOA minutes 061013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/8/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 82 of 92 ordinance and CMS, who is the county’s consultant, has provided his recommendation report and 1 stated that we have met all technical and specific requirements of the ordinance. 2 3 Larry Wright: I have a question on the visibility. I look at these locations and it seems like this is 4 being erected in a small wooded are and what is the size of that area? How many acres? Location 4 5 I am looking at and then I am looking for location 3, this is tab 7 so it seems like there is a canopy of 6 trees that from some of these locations masks the tower, am I right? 7 8 Karen Kemerait: That is correct. 9 10 Larry Wright: Then I look at, for instance location 6, under tab 7, and there is a larger panel that is a 11 picture and then the top panel shows the location of a tower in a wooded area on the upper right hand 12 side. How large is that wooded area surrounding the tower? The proposed tower. 13 14 Karen Kemerait: The property owners are here and they may be able to speak. I will try to get that 15 information to you, how large that area is. 16 17 Larry Wright: I would like to state that when a tower was located in back of my house I wanted to 18 make sure they put the balloon test up and they have all these nice pictures where it masked it but 19 what happens is they can log it in three days after we make our decision and so in part of the 20 recommendation, I ask the Board if there could be some sort of agreement that they would maintain 21 that and not log it in the way they presented it to the Board with a balloon test and the property owner 22 agreed to do that with the attorney. 23 24 Karen Kemerait: That has not been discussed yet however, I can talk to the property owner and see 25 if that is something that could be agreed to or not. Moving on to the general standards, I think it is 26 important to point out that the visibility of the tower is not granted. Having the top of the tower is not 27 grounds for denying a special use permit. 28 29 Larry Wright: No, but it could be grounds for… it is just like this board has asked a landowner or 30 asked the applicant if they would put up buffers as a noise barrier against a kennel and they agree to 31 do that. What I am saying is that this could be a condition. I can’t do it on my own and you can’t do it 32 on your own but this could be a condition that this buffer would be maintained as presented to the 33 Board. 34 35 Karen Kemerait: I don’t have the authority to agree to it as I am speaking to you and the property 36 owners are here and that is why we ask them to come so if issues did arise that I could speak to them 37 and see what their response would be. What I would suggest is that after I finish my presentation I 38 could speak to the property owners and provide a response. For the general standards, we have also 39 shown in the application materials that we have met all the general standards for special uses. We 40 have shown the evidence is presented for all three of the general standards. First, we have shown 41 that the telecommunications tower use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general 42 welfare. We have shown that the RF emissions will comply with all federal standards and laws. We 43 have shown that the telecommunications tower will provide access to 911 services in times of 44 emergencies. We have also, in my earlier presentation, talked about how the telecommunications 45 tower will provide convenience to Orange County and the residents who live and travel in this area 46 and to the public in general by having access to the wireless services and I have also talked about 47 how this is very important for economic development purposes for the area surrounding the tower and 48 Orange County as a whole. The application materials also provide information about how the use will 49 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. There will be no environmental hazard from 50 this tower and there will be no nuisance. The tower will generate little traffic. It is an unmanned 51 facility and generate only two to four vehicle trips per month. There will be no odor, noise or glare 52 and it will be an unlit tower. We also have the property impact analysis that has been provided by 53