Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />October 11, 2022 <br />that.In terms that there is already AT&T coverage and there is no need for there to be a 235- <br />foot poletobe erectedthat will increase coverage in any sizeable way, in terms of cell-coverage. <br />He brought a picture to submit to the Commission just so you can see the distance that we are <br />dealing withat this point that will show the existing collocation pole and what isproposed. <br />Mr. Patterson handedout a diagram to the Board. He said as you can see this is the proposed <br />metro pole,the235 and the collocation right now,which is the SBA pole thatwas established22 <br />years ago. That particularpole, just to give it context with the Commission, is about at 73 <br />percent capacity. Right now, AT&T is located there at 180 feet. There is room to go higher <br />which would be less of a burdenthen building an entirely new communications line.He would <br />also like to submit a letter to the Commission from Jason Laskey, Zoning Manager for SBA <br />Communications. <br />Mr. Johnson objects and asked if Mr. Laskey was present. <br />Mr. Patterson said he is not. <br />(From the audience) Mr. Johnson objects if he is not present to speak to it, it ishearsayif he is <br />trying to use it as expert testimony.(inaudible) <br />Mr. Patterson said it is not for any expert testimony. It is more background informationfor the <br />Commission to consider. <br />(From the audience)Mr. Johnson said again, that is hearsayif he is not here to provide that <br />background information. <br />Mr. Goldberg said hislegalrecommendationfor the Commission would bethatif the person is <br />not here to make the statement himself and tobe subject to cross examination,it would probably <br />be consideredhearsay,and not admissible.The Board is required to generally followthe rules of <br />evidence and general admissibility and hearsay where appropriate.He said the Chair may <br />determine whether that evidence should be admissible or notand that is subject toappeal to the <br />full Commission if necessary. <br />(From the audience) Mr. Johnson saidthe other grounds would be relevance,as well.It is <br />speaking to theexisting tower and not the new tower,why is this relevant. <br />Mr. Goldbergsaid if you are going to object you need to come to the mic. <br />Mr. Johnsonapologized, andsaid his objection is twofold. One is hearsay, you do not have the <br />person here to speak about it, whodid the letter,and the otherpartisrelevance. Why evengoing <br />downthis direction. He questions whether it is even relevant to what we are applying forhere. <br />The new tower meets the separation requirement,and he has presented the evidence from the RF <br />24 <br /> <br />