Elko County Planning Commission ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV PH. (775) , FAX (775) ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, :15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Larason called the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order at 5:13 PM on Thursday, in suite 102 of the Nannini Administration Building, Elko, Nevada. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Absent : Others Present: John Kingwell, Supervisor/Planner Kimberly Hess, Administrative Assistant Kristin McQueary, District Attorney s Office PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE The pledge of allegiance was made.

2 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, 2014 Regular Meeting MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve January 16, 2014 Minutes as amended; Commissioner Hartley seconded. Motion passed. VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC CONSENT AGENDA NOTICE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS Notice of Appeal Process was read by Chairman Larason. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS Application No , Commnet Wireless: A public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit for collocation of one (1) fiber cable, one (1) DC cable and six (6) antennas with ancillary equipment, at the 140' elevation on the existing 179' monopole owned by AT&T Mobility. A separate 12' x 12' ground lease will be obtained from the property owner. The compound will be enclosed by an 8' wood fence to correspond with similar compounds within Elko County.

3 Page 3 Location: A 5.56 acre parcel of land located just outside of the Spring Creek Subdivision in an Agriculture Residential District within Section 17, Township 33 North, Range 57 East., M.D.B.&M. Physical Address is 65 Spring Creek Lane, Spring Creek, NV. Applicant: Commnet Wireless (Commnet of Nevada) Owner: Beth Ellen Carpel The staff report was read by Mr. Kingwell. Commissioner Hough arrived at 5:20 pm. Commissioner Hartley asked Mr. Kingwell how many people were notified in the area. Mr. Kingwell stated that they contacted the 30 closest property owners which due to some owning more than one lot ended up being 27 owners notified. Chairman Larason opened the floor for public comment. Richard Reid, lives on 3 Spring Creek Lane, commented that he would like to register his adversity to hanging more antennas on the tower. He stated that it is an extremely large tower and is sure that if it was any of the Commissioner s back yard they would sympathize. He stated that he s lived there for the past 8 years and for the last two weeks men have been working on the tower. He is curious if they ve needed an application to begin to work. He also stated that he was curious how many more antennas could go on the tower. Commissioner Genseal asked Mr. Reid if he is opposed to the tower itself or to more antennas being put on the tower. Mr. Reid stated that he s opposed to it as a whole. Commissioner Genseal asked what kind of adverse effect it will have, besides aesthetic value, to his house or property. Mr. Reid responded that he suspects that it is affecting his property value. Commissioner Genseal stated that it is also outside his window and he is wondering how the Commission as a whole can look at it to determine whether the addition of the antennas will affect things. Mr. Reid stated that it is fair to say that though it is of limited visual impact there will still be some impact. Commissioner Hartley asked where his property is in reference to the tower. Mr. Reid stated that his property is northeast of the tower. Commissioner Hartley stated that she can see it from Palace Parkway and asked Mr. Kingwell what size the antenna and dishes are. Mr. Kingwell responded that he doesn t have the exact measurements but brought the drawing up to show that they are similar to the current dishes that are in place. He stated that he was approached originally by Commnet to build another tower and that this addition comes from the decision that co-locating would cause less visual impact than a second tower. Commissioner Hartley stated that she wishes that with the original application for this tower they d requested that Commnet make the tower look like a tree. Mr. Kingwell stated that it would be the tallest tree in Nevada. He continued that there were discussions on different locations but that the engineer determined this site to be the

4 Page 4 best option and the lease agreement was already in discussion. He stated that the lights are necessary for air traffic safety. He stated that they will most likely see more towers for data use but that they will be shorter. Mr. Reid stated that with some of the research he s done on the internet he s not sure if they can stop that from happening or not. Mr. Kingwell stated that federal codes do restrict but they do have some say in it. Mr. Reid referenced the Federal Communications Act of 1996 and stated that it sounds like it s out of their hands. Commissioner Wilson asked if there will be more lights added to the tower with this application. Mr. Kingwell stated that there will not. Commissioner Galyen referenced Staff Report section 7d stating that if they will not be used they will be removed at the owner s expense and stated that he thought that the applicant was responsible for the removal, not the owner. He s curious who is responsible. Kingwell stated that it is the equipment owner that is responsible. Commissioner Galyen asked if they should clarify that in the motion or if Mr. Kingwell thinks the language in the staff report says that clearly now. Mr. Kingwell stated that it s the same language that they have been using and he believes it states it clearly enough. Ms. McQueary stated that if at the time of a motion they would like to add that clarification it is not a problem. Chairman Larason asked if any other commissioners had comments. Hearing none he asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve Application No , Commnet Wireless based on Staff recommendations, findings and conditions including under conditions on 7D that it is the equipment owner s responsibility to remove the equipment if it is no longer viable for use; Commissioner Judd seconded. Motion passed. VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

5 Page 5 OTHER BUSINESS STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Ms. McQueary stated that Mr. Reid was correct that the federal law regarding these towers gives a little latitude as far as the zoning location. This tower has already been located and in reusing the existing pole this limits the impacts on the area. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Katrinka Russell stated that she is a neighbor to where all of the tower and related shelters are being located. She wanted to address the board regarding the tower; she understands that it cannot be stopped but stated that at the time the tower was put up they were told there would be one tower, one pole and one shelter put up with a fence. They had requested that it be made to look nice and it currently looks terrible. She has had her house on the market since August of She believes she s had a fair price on it and has had a lot of people call but when they come and see the tower they change their mind on buying the home. She feels that they ve put a lot of time and money into their home and a lower price would be giving it away. She stated that now there is another shelter, additional fencing and more antennas and the area is beginning to look commercialized. She s requesting that the commission not let any more come into the area. On future requests she asks that the commission take a look at the area. She requests that if more is going to be done they ask for beautification in the area to be a part of the process such as trees. She also believes the tower isn t working like it was presented to originally as they are still dropping calls. Chairman Larason read the Notice of Appeal again. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:41 pm. Minutes Clerk: Kimberly Hess Date Approved: March 27, 2014 (Staff Reports are available on the Elko County website at: )