January 10, 2023 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 11, 2022 Ms. Morris would need a minute to look at that. Buthistorically, back in the day,the applicant was required to have a third-party review when they were submitting cell towers to the County, to prove some of those things that maybe back then you could not showusingresources that might be available now. She would be happy to take a look at it to see what the current language states. If there wassomething like that,it would not , it would have to be at the expense of the applicant. She has been here for close to twenty years,and that has never been something that has been employed, except for when cell phones were first coming about,and people were not receptive to those towers. There wasa lotmore of a fight,to determine where those towers were going to go at that time,and that technicalpiece is what those agencies provided. It says,in the event a dispute arisesas to whether an applicant has exercised good faith in accommodating other users,theadministrator may require the applicant to obtain a third-party technical study at the applicants expense. The administrator may review any information submitted by the applicantin determining whether good faith has been exercised. Again, that is not something typicallythat has been used. Once those statutory changes were made,the State kind of told ushere is what you need to look at,xyand zwhen it comes to a new towerlocation.Butthis really is inrelation to collocation,notnecessarily tonew towers. Mr. Gilmansaid one thing that he would like to point out is the reason that Mr. Johnson is here on behalf of AT&Tisa monetary gain. He is sure there are fees and premiums that they will be be losingtheirs,so that is what he seesis the real battle. Plan B is if zoning declines this. Obviously,it has been pointed out that there is room to go higher on the existing tower, so he would like to know what the Plan B wouldbefor themif this is their Plan A. Mr. Goldberg said Mr. Chair we are heading in thatdirection of itbeginningproprietary business decision makingin that line of inquiry. He would caution in that way. The Chair said duly noted.He asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being nonehe said the Board will move into discussion. Mr. Paxton asked Ms. Howell to correct him if he is wrong. Hisonly comment would be that the applicant has presented the evidence that meetsthe ordinance, is that correct? Mr. Goldbergsaid you may want to rephrase that a little bit. The Board is going to decide whether there is competent, substantial evidence thatthe applicant has presented. Another way to present it is ,has there been sufficient evidence. Staff does not usually provide an opinion as to that. 37