January 10, 2023 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 11, 2022 objection, then it would be a question of relevanceas has been stated as well. Maybe you would want to ask if this is a hearsay statement. He thinks that would be helpful in yourdecision making. Mr. Johnson said that is his concern.He is going to be speaking to a lettersomeone else prepared about something that is not within his personal knowledge. That is his problem with this, is that you start talking about facts on a piece of paper by somebody where this gentleman is not a witnessand has not gone out there and seen it. You would need the person who wrote this letter to speak to the facts that are in there. The law is pretty clear that those witnesses to be available for cross examination when that is presentedand that is pretty clear in the zoning law under quasi-judicial decisions. The Chair said since the writer of letter is not hereto cross examine, then the letter will not be admissible. Mr. Goldberg said you would be sustaining his objection for hearsay. The instruction would be that you would not be able to tender thatletter as evidence. Mr. Patterson said Mr. Chair,and for the members of the Commission as well, he knows we statedat leastthattheapplication was complete. But he would at least like to point out some missing documents from the application. There are certain things that were not present within the application itself. If he were to do that, he would at least like to show a coverage map, so that the Commission can see just the level of coverage. Mr. Johnson said again,he would object,unless there was somebodyhere that prepared that map just to show the coverage.The same situation as the letter. Mr. Goldberg said usually in evidentiary matters, you would ask to provide a foundation for submission of that evidence. You wouldusuallytenderthatthis is where this came from, this is how it developed, and this is what it says.In quasi-judicial matters, the question you have in this way ispresent competent, material,and substantial evidence,asnot as repetitive as allowed by the Board. He said you may have some leeway on that one.But up to the Board, substantial and competentevidence. The Chair will allow the map. Mr. Patterson thanked the Chair. He said as you can see, this is a map of the property itself. This is existing coverage for AT&T,and this is at 180 feet.What they are proposing isthat at roughly 225-feet,they are still at the same700megahertz, which will handlethe majority of your 5G communications. Again, there is no enhancement ofany public health or safetyor general welfare. That does not enhance much of anythingin terms of the public welfareor the wireless connection that iscentered around inthe area. He said in terms of the applicationandwhat is missing from the application, inChapter 8, Section 6for Special Use Permits,it requires the availability of suitable existing towers, other 26