January 10, 2023 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 11, 2022 the fight that they have is what Mr.Paxton pointed out,and that is monetary. It is the monetary issue. They are here because they are not going to be getting any money from AT&T for that location, it is true they are indeed doing it. Butthis falls within the parametersoftheOrdinance andimproves the service to the north where there are dropped calls andmaintains the serviceto the south. Whether or not you could go build a new, taller tower at the existing location is not relevant because there is no proposal to build a new tower at that location. What we have to look at is the existing towers and that is exactly what AT&T did, looked at the existing situation. The existing coverage mapis already here. There is no requirement that we speculate,that if you put a new tower there that is 235-feet, what would it do? It is not there,so your ordinance does not require that, it talks about existing structures. That is his point on that. He hates that we are going down this path because he thinks you are going down a path that is something that isirrelevant to the ordinance.It is somebody who is losing money and wants to keep that moneyand that is by its very nature biased and you have someone coming in here objectingbut with no teeth to it. Where is the evidence, where is the sworn testimony, where is any of that that is really relevantto the situation?We have none of that. The standards that are before you are health and safety. We have met those requirementsinterms offall zones, in terms of providing better service, better 911 service,and better FirstNet service. We met that requirement. Second, impact on property values. The only expert testimony here is from Mr. Berkowitz,who is a certified appraiser,and he says no impact.We do not have any other evidenceto the contrary with respect to that concern. The other is, is it in harmony? It is in harmony because as Ms. Howell mentioned,it is allowed as a Special Use Permitin this district. By definition,understate law,the presumption is it is harmoniousbecause it is allowed by the ordinance in that district. The final thing is do we meet the requirementsof the ordinance and we have checked all those boxes and submitted allthose documents. Despite the questions about that,he did point out where they are there. Including on page C14of the drawings,there is an aerial map that shows the separation distance between the towers and that is in the record and has been from the beginning. He does not want to belabor it unless there are further questions, that is our position with respect to our application. We have met the requirements and there isno expert testimony,since this is quasi-judicial,to the contrary. Mr. Corley asked that someone from Staff explain this third-partyreview option that was mentioned. He would like to understand what that is and is not. 36