Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />October 11, 2022 <br />Engineer who is present for cross examinationwith respect to the improvement in coverage by <br />this tower. <br />Mr.Hudspeth saidwhen he is finished,he would like to ask the RF Engineer a question. <br />Mr. Johnson said he is available to do that, he just spoke to him about doing that.Mr. Johnson <br />was not anticipating this,but that would be part of his rebuttal. <br />Mr. Goldberg said we do have a request to admita piece of evidence into the recordthat has <br />beenobjected to.The Chair needs to make a decision one way or the other to move forward. He <br />also brings up questions of relevance,sojust as ageneral parameter of that,usually evidence <br />should be moreprobative, morehelpful than prejudicial, so something that is not relevantor <br />interferes withsupportingtheconclusion. <br />Mr. Patterson would like to respond to the relevance objection. He said relevantevidenceis any <br />evidence that has the tendency to make a fact aconsequencemore likely than not.The only <br />reason forsubmitting this letter to the Commission is just to show essentially,thatAT&T has <br />coverage already. The duplicativeness of building the235-footmonopole,it is not enhancing <br />anything,outside of the fact that it is justexpanding a very small coverage. <br />Mr. Goldbergsaidto the Chair since there is a discussion of whether this evidence should be <br />admitted, it is kind of tricky because you are making a decision in hearing the evidence. You <br />make want to keep that in mind as he continues. <br />Mr. Patterson said that is all he will say about. <br />Mr. Johnson has a concern about what he was saying, because he is saying a lot of things. But <br />unless he is an expert on the coverage and the coverage maps, he would say that is irrelevant to <br />the Board as well. He would need to have his own RF expert up here to testify to these particular <br />items about coverage. Which we have provided certified maps from and RF Engineer in that <br />regard. <br />Mr. Corley said Mr. Chairman,not that you need his opinionat all, but from the relevancy <br />standpoint, he feels like that is our determination. He feels like if this is related to our decision <br />makingon whether we are going to permit this new tower, he frankly would like to hear it. He <br />does not believe the gentleman has attempted to make witness testimony. If the other side has <br />some rebuttal from an expert witness,he would appreciate hearing that as a rebuttal as well. But <br />perhaps it is not appropriate to enter a letter into evidence but the content as long as it is not <br />being given to us as expert testimony. <br />Mr. Goldberg said there are two objections, one is hearsay, an out of court statement made to the <br />truth of the matter, that is the first objection. Normally,you would have a witness who would <br />tender evidence and would be ableto becross examinedand we have seen what that looks like. <br />If you choose to sustain that objection we would not have to go further. If you over rule that <br />25 <br /> <br />