Browse
Search
BOA minutes 111113
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2013
>
BOA minutes 111113
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:17:01 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:44:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/11/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 111113
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Approved 4/22/2014 <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 116 of 123 <br />10. Any proposed co-location of antenna on this tower shall be reviewed, acted upon, and 1 <br />installed in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 2 <br />11. A co-location site shall be offered to the County for the placement of antenna in support of 3 <br />local emergency communication needs. 4 <br />12. The applicant shall submit all necessary bonding/financial security documents to the 5 <br />County Attorney’s office for review and approval guaranteeing the removal of the tower in 6 <br />the event it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months. A cost estimate shall be 7 <br />provided by a qualified contractor. The amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the 8 <br />estimate. This must be completed before building permits are issued. 9 <br />13. Telecommunication tower owners shall submit a report to the County Inspections Division 10 <br />certifying structural and electrical integrity upon completion of the initial construction and at 11 <br />intervals as specified within the UDO. 12 <br />14. Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner and made available upon request to 13 <br />the County Inspections Division during regular business hours. Inspections shall be 14 <br />performed as specified within the UDO. 15 <br />15. In those cases where an inspection is required, which is not performed by Orange County 16 <br />Inspections, the applicant is required to notify the Planning Department and any applicable 17 <br />County telecommunication consultant of the inspection and its results. 18 <br />16. Nothing associated with the approval, development or use of the property in support of the 19 <br />proposed telecommunication facilities shall be construed as impacting the use of the 20 <br />property for bona-fide farm purposes. Expansion of farming activities shall not constitute a 21 <br />modification of the special use permit as detailed within the UDO requiring a re-review of 22 <br />the project by the Board of Adjustment. 23 <br />17. The County’s telecommunications consultant shall issue a final Certificate of Completion 24 <br />upon the completion of a final inspection of the constructed telecommunication facilities. 25 <br />Commercial service cannot be provided/initiated until this final Certificate is completed and 26 <br />issued. 27 <br />18. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of 28 <br />approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded 29 <br />unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of 30 <br />Adjustment. 31 <br />19. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special 32 <br />Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. 33 <br /> 34 <br />MOTION made by David Blankfard to approve the Special Use Permit with the recommendations #1-19 35 <br />presented by staff. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 36 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 37 <br /> 38 <br />CONTINUATION OF BUCK APPEAL – A-3-13 39 <br />Larry Wright: I would like to reconvene our closed session on Agenda item A-3-13, the appeal of a decision 40 <br />made by the zoning officer submitted by Mr. Buck. You were going to give us counsel (to David Rooks). I was 41 <br />going to offer a method of reaching a resolution in the sense of framing the question for making this decision. 42 <br /> 43 <br />David Rooks: My suggestion is that you frame it in terms of three questions as if you were doing an appeal as to 44 <br />what this really is. The first would be and I am assuming that Mr. Davis was the development officer when he 45 <br />signed this plat. Question number 1, did the development officer err in failing to apply the subdivision ordinance 46 <br />recreation space requirements in effect on March 31, 1998 in the decision to approve the Phase IV Churton 47
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.