BOA minutes 070813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/10/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 8 of 82 1 Rusty Monroe: The FCC considers it safe as long as they comply with their standards. They said you can find all 2 kinds of arguments on both sides of the issue. The FCC is reopening the issue based on a lot of pressure. As of now, 3 that is the law. I have been sworn in. 4 5 Michael Harvey: Mr. Dixon, is there any more evidence? 6 7 Gary Dixon: I have a comment. We are not against cell towers, but the property placement of it. I have heard no talk 8 about any other places, maybe minimizing the height to make it less intrusive, have less impact to preserve and 9 enhance our neighborhood. To preserve and enhance is what the UDO was entitled to do. That is what we have it in 10 place for. I would like to see it utilized in this instance. The preservation of this nice countryside. This thing sticks out 11 like a sore thumb. It is 20 stories, why does it have to be so tall? There are 30 families with children there. Those 12 things collect ice in the winter. Where will the ice go when it melts? Will if fall on the cattle, the veterinarian treating 13 the cattle, where is the ice going to go from 20 stories up when it melts and starts falling? That is a common sense 14 question. These things do fall. That is the whole idea of giving you the pictures just to give you a better picture. I 15 wasn’t trying to persuade, I want you to actually get a better picture of the neighborhood. Every picture I have seen is 16 from the third property down, not from the one that is close by. I simply wanted to give a clearer picture and knowing 17 what these do to the values, it is supposed to preserve. Where does the enhancement of the value of the property, 18 where does it start, does it start at the closest property to the base of the tower or is it enhancing and preserving the 19 property a mile away. It is so objective. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: A question for our attorney, the statement of the Ordinance Section 5.3.2.a.2.b which sets forth the 22 requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property unless the use is a public necessity 23 in which case, the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Do you have a definition or 24 guidance for us about what a public necessity may be? 25 26 James Bryan: I would like to defer to staff. 27 28 Rusty Monroe: State law does not deem it a utility. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: What do you mean deemed a utility? 31 32 Rusty Monroe: It is not defined as a utility, it is not regulated in a number of respects the way utilities are, as regards 33 to necessity, and I will defer to your attorney. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: If public necessity was a term of art or if there is case law that gives examples of what a public 36 necessity would be because we have heard testimony about the need for cellular communications in that area of the 37 county because you need 911 communications in case your car breaks down and there are areas out there without 38 communication and I wonder whether this rises to the level of public necessity and the attorney for American Tower 39 would have something to say about that as to whether they are contending this is a public necessity and therefore we 40 would not need to consider whether it would maintain or enhance the value of the property. 41 42 Karen Kemerait: I think both, like Mr. Monroe said, that telecommunications towers are not regulated as public utilities. 43 That does not mean they are not a public necessity and some public utilitie s are not considered to be public necessity. 44 I think in our modern day society that many would believe that telecommunication towers would be a public necessity. 45 I don’t think you would necessarily need to reach that issue because we have already provided what is required by the 46 ordinance that shows this will enhance or maintain the value of contiguous property so I think that the evidence of 47 record demonstrates that. 48 49 Michael Harvey: From staff’s perspective, it is our contention there is only technically one body that can make the 50 determination if something is a public necessity and that is the BOCC. From our standpoint, we have never had a 51