CC Min 2005-04-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

parameters around which the decision should be based. The application at hand is for a wireless telecommunications facility to be placed on a church in a residential zone. The Telecommunications Act states that 1)any decision made shall be in writing and of a separate written record and, 2) that you must have substantial evidence that a reasonable person could make a conclusion based on the evidence presented, 3) that you cannot discriminate between similar providers. That is, to the extent, that you have similar providers, they must be treated the same. More importantly, when discussing the authority of a local entity, Council's authority is limited specifically, by the Telecommunications Act, which states that you may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of these kinds of facilities. The issue of emissions is one that the Federal Government has specifically provided is limited to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission and not an issue of which local entities can make any kind of determination. M/S Foust/Howard to re -open the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Public Comment. Patricia Bury, representing the First Congregational Church, thanked Council for its work and read a statement from the Church stating that on March 21 a letter was sent out to 82 of the immediate neighbors advising of a meeting to be held on April 4. The meeting consisted of 7 neighbors, 15 members from the church and two representatives from AT &T who answered questions concerning safety concerns. The statement said that the church does not make money from the antenna or from any other building users and that the money received from users helps the church serve the community and maintain its property. It further stated that the church council representing the congregation decides on each use based on impact to the community and if even the slightest chance of harm to anyone existed, the church would not be willing to host the cell antenna equipment. Council Member Foust asked how many notices were sent out for the meeting and clarified that no Council Members were able to attend because a joint study session with the Planning Commission occurred at the same time. Howard Smith stated that he was unable to attend the meeting on April 4 but had submitted a response. He opposed the church's business practice of operating wireless telecommunications facilities on the property that is zoned for residential use. He referred to his letter to Council submitted on April 22 elaborating in greater detail many of the justifications to his two requests. His first request was that Council over rule the Zoning Administrator's approval of the use permit for the new proposed facility, and that Council direct the Zoning Administrator to JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND APRIL 25, 2005 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 6 MINUTES BOOK NO. 60 Page No. 457