►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
evening,
if
we
could
have
everyone
take
their
seats,
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
this
evening's
public
hearing.
B
B
All
right,
you've
heard
of
motion
no
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
most
carries.
We
will
now
have
the
the
clark
wardle
llp
will
be
moved
up
to
the
number
one
spot
in
new
business.
Okay,
I'll
accept
a
motion
to
remove
the
unfinished
business
from
the
table.
E
B
Okay,
all
in
favor,
say
aye,
aye,
right
right.
Okay,
unfinished
business
is
now
before
us.
The
first.
C
B
Check
your
your
cell
phones
put
them
on,
put
them
on
silent
or
turn
them
off.
Okay,
the
first
item
of
unfinished
business
was
table
from
the
727.
B
F
You
originally
heard
this
application
on
june
1st
and
tabled
the
application
for
the
applicant
and
neighboring
willow
tree
homeowners
association
to
come
to
agreements
on
the
use
of
the
drainfield
and
other
easements.
Since
the
last
hearing
the
applicant
has
submitted
new
proposed
agreements
that
cover
the
willow
tree
common
area,
the
canal
pump
facilities
and
the
drain
field.
F
F
The
applicant
shall
submit
a
new
preliminary
plot
for
review
by
staff
depicting
two
common
lots,
one
of
which
shall
consist
of
the
willow
tree
hoa
common
area
easement
after
recording
of
the
final
plot.
The
common
lot
consisting
of
the
willow
tree
hoa
common
area,
shall
be
deeded
to
the
willow
tree
hoa
and
that
the
existing
willow
tree
hoa
drain
field
shall
shall
be
maintained
within
an
easement
for
the
sole
and
exclusive
use
of
the
willow
tree
hoa.
B
B
B
Okay,
we're
going
to
since
we've
already
had
the
main
discussion
we're
going
to.
I
think,
keep
you
to
three
minutes.
Can
you
do
that
in
three
minutes
plenty
of
time?
Okay,.
G
Go.
Thank
you,
commissioners.
My
name
is
joe
suthers,
I'm
important
in
lakey
peer
and
I'm
on
behalf
of
that
aaron
langston.
G
I
was
just
coming
up
here
to
pretty
much
convey
that
we're
in
agreement
with
staff's
proposal,
as
well
as
I'd
like
to
thank
corey
for
all
of
her
work
and
recommendation
of
approval,
as
well
as
planning
zoning's
recommendation
of
approval.
Like
kind
of
summarize,
there
we've
come
to
agreement
with
the
hoa
and
regarding
the
conditions
set
forth
in
staff's
proposal
and
open
for
any
questions
from
the
commissioners.
If
you
have
any
all.
B
Right
any
questions,
the
applicant
all
right.
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Anyone
here
from
the
homeowners
association.
H
Yeah
cameron,
stewart
3382
south
but
daniel.
Please.
H
Just
wanted
to
express
our
appreciation
for
for
all
the
work
that's
been
done
to
get
this
to
go
through.
We
have
come
to
an
agreement
with
jaren
and
his
team.
We
can
support
this
proposal
with
the
guidelines
outlined
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
for
the
subdivision.
Any
questions.
C
No,
I
just
want
to
make
a
comment
I
like
how
this
is
going.
This
is
what
you're
hoping
most
folks
can
do,
is
get
together
and
and
work
on
the
issues
and
the
problems
and
come
to
an
agreement,
so
we
don't
have
to
work
it
out
up
here.
So
I
really
appreciate
the
efforts
on
both
sides,
the
homeowners
association
and
the
neighbors,
as
well
as
the
developer
and
his
representation
appreciate
it.
B
And
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
also
express
my
appreciation
it.
It
is
nice
when
neighbors
can
get
together
and
come
to
a
conclusion
that
that's
that's
amenable
and
acceptable
to
all
parties.
So
it's
a
win-win
situation
for
the
county
and
for
the
you
and
for
the
the
proposed
applicant.
So
I
appreciate
that
we
agree.
Thank
you
any
other
questions
or
discussion
from
the
com
from
the
commission.
You.
B
B
Apparently
not
apparently
not
so
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two:
zero:
two:
two:
zero
zero,
two
one,
one
s
p
r
v,
a
c
jaron
langston
and
it's
now
closed
and
it's
up
to
the
board.
Is
there?
Is
there
a
motion
pending.
E
Well,
mr
chair,
I
would
move
to
approve
application.
Number
two:
zero.
Two:
two:
zero
zero:
two
one
one
dash
s
dash
p
r,
dash
v,
a
c
based
on
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
law
contained
in
the
staff
report
that
testimony
heard
this
evening.
E
Right
and
that
we've
we've
agreed
to
the
conditions
of
approval,
submitted
the
report
on
the
screen
here
and
anything
else.
B
Well,
we
can
read
it.
The
applicant
shall
submit
a
new
preliminary
platform
review
by
staff
depicting
two
common
lots,
one
of
which
shall
consist
of
the
willow
tree,
homeowner
association,
common
area
easement
after
recording
the
final
plot,
the
common
lock
consisting
of
the
willow
tree
homeowner
association
common
area,
shall
be
deeded
to
the
will
tree.
Homeowners
association,
the
existing
willow
tree
homeowner
association
drain
field
shall
be
maintained
within
an
easement
for
the
sole
and
exclusive
use
of
the
willow
tree.
Homeowner
association.
B
B
Okay,
we'll
you've
heard
the
motion
and
the
dually
seconded
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
aye
aye.
B
Okay,
we'll
next
have
a
consideration:
a
application,
two
zero:
two:
two:
zero
zero;
seven
one:
one
dash
s:
h:
d,
p,
l,
l
c:
if
we
can
get
up
get
a
report
from
that
from
the
staff
from
our
staff.
B
I
Yes,
chairman
beck
commissioners
before
you,
yes,
application,
two
zero,
two:
two:
zero
zero,
seven
one
one
dash
s,
yellowstone
subdivision
applicants,
hdp
llc,
just
a
quick
overview.
This
was
a
three
lot
subdivision
there
west
or
southwest
akuna
northeast
of
melba.
I
I
So
in
your
your
last
hearing,
you
had
some
questions
that
you
wanted
to
be
addressed
concerning
both
the
private
wells
in
the
area,
their
status
as
well
as
you'd
like
to
see
some
sort
of
agreement
presented
to
you
between
the
property
owner
or
the
developer
and
those
the
cafo
operator,
and
so
those
were
provided
to
you
in
the
memo
as
well
as
in
the
exhibits,
you
know
there's,
and
you
also
have
questions
about
the
zoning
and
the
comp
plan,
and
so
I
will
just
emphasize
that
this
property
is
in
the
future
land
use
map
for
ada
county.
I
It
is
agriculture.
Irrigated
primary
uses
are
agriculture,
but
also
secondary
uses
are
allowed
like
rural
residential
lots
and
properties,
and
then
the
rural
residential
district
is
a
zoning
district
here
and
it
does
allow
for
10
acre
lots
as
a
minimum
lot
size.
All
proposed
lots
do
meet
that
10
acre
minimum.
I
Chairman
beck,
I
do
believe
you
are
correct.
Let
me
make
sure
here
that
we
have
that
as
a
specific
condition
of
approval.
B
Will
be
recorded
on
the
final
platform?
Okay,
well,
I've
read
that
nuisance
that
nuisance,
one
that
we
looked
at
and
it's
it's
way
more
restrictive
than
the
right
to
farm
act,
and
I
I
I
don't.
I
personally
think
we
should
go
ahead
and
approve
this
with
that
caveat
that
it
be
on
the
plat
the
right
to
follow
back.
To
be
honest,
so
all
future
owners
will
will
know
about
the
right
to
farm
act.
C
I
Yes,
chairman
beck,
commissioner
canyon,
yes,
those
were
provided
in
the
memo
for
you.
There
were,
I
believe,
four
different
exhibits
provided.
Number
38
was
a
well
and
groundwater
management
map
number
39
was
a
well
nitrate
results
for
the
area,
and
we
had
some
well
depth
results
from
the
course
for
the
surrounding
wells
in
the
area
and
then.
Lastly,
the
weld
drillers
report
for
the
the
dwelling
to
the
south
of
this
property
was
also
provided
by
the
application.
I
No
so
chairman
bec,
commissioner
kenyon,
our
our
county
engineer,
is
not
recommending
any
additional
conditions
based
on
that,
but
there
are
still
the
there's
the
condition
that
any
new
wells
should
be
tested
for
arsenic,
uranium
and
nitrates,
along
with
the
typical,
well
testing
and
those
results
have
to
be
reported
to
the
county,
so
that
is
still
existing.
There
were
no
new
conditions
added
by
the
county
engineer.
I
B
C
Mr
chair,
I'm
satisfied
that
we
don't
need
a
nuisance
waiver
on
this
as
well.
I
think
that,
as
long
as
the
right
to
farm
act
is
clearly
stated
in
there
and
we
have
these
conditions
of
approval-
and
it's
obvious-
it's
visual-
that
this
product,
this
property
lies
within
an
agricultural
cafo
area.
I
don't
think
people
are
going
to
buy
it
blind,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
to
approve
zero.
Seven
one
s
based
on
the
findings
of
facts,
conclusions
of
law
and
the
testimony
given
here
tonight.
E
We
have
to
second
that
still
a
little
concerned
that
you
know
somewhere
down
the
line.
People
moving
in
from
out
of
state
might
not
be
looking
at
that
might
still
want
to
find
ways
around
it,
but
I
think
the
right
to
farm
act
is
is
pretty
solid,
and
so
I'm
gonna
second,
that.
B
It
is
very
solid
and
they'd
have
to
be
blind
if
they
didn't
notice
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
so
yeah.
So
all
right,
you
heard
the
motion.
All
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,.
C
B
Okay,
we
have
next
in
unfinished
business
application:
two
zero,
two
one:
zero:
two,
eight
five,
two
z
c
d:
a
m
s,
p
arc
chrysalis
architecture;
this
application
was
closed
and
that
the
board
did
ask
for
some
additional
information.
If
you
could
give
us
a
report,
staff.
J
So,
mr
chairman,
the
board
at
your
july,
13th
public
hearing
had
tabled
this
project
to
get
some
additional
information
regarding
transportation-related
issues,
namely
the
requirement
for
a
cross-access
easement
between
lots,
14-15
block,
3,
a
fiddler's
glance
subdivision,
and
the
anticipated
timeline
of
when
the
roundabout
at
lake
hazel
and
maple
grove
roads
will
be
built
regarding
the
cross
access
easement
between
lots,
14
and
15
block
three
of
fiddler's
glen
subdivision
the
a
county
highway
district
recommended
for
a
county
to
require
this,
but
does
not
have
the
cross
access
easement
as
a
site-specific
condition
of
approval,
thus
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
county
of
whether
or
not
to
impose
the
cross
access.
J
Easement.
The
board
has
the
option
of
keeping
the
condition
to
require
the
cross,
access,
easement
or
removing
condition.
Number
six
that
was
listed
in
the
draft
conditions
of
approval
and
the
draft
findings
of
fact.
Regarding
the
timeline
associated
with
roundabout
lake
hazel
maple
grove
bay
county
highway
district
staff
say
that
this
is
scheduled
for
construction
in
2024.
K
C
Mr
chair,
if
I
may
so
when
we're
looking
at
the
cross
access
easement
just
to
be
clear
with
all
parties
and
with
the
board,
if
you
could
pull
up
a
close-up
of
those,
two
lots.
Sure.
C
Okay,
so
what
we're
looking
at
is
an
easement
between
that
would
be
running
how
many
feet
would
it
run
in
before
it
tees
off
into
each
lot?
So,
basically,.
J
The
cross
access
season.
What
do
we
do
so
we
have
the
the
south
lot
here,
which
has
which
is
highlighting
red,
and
then
we
have
the
light
lot,
that's
directly
to
the
north.
What
the
cross
axis
easement
would
do
it
would.
Basically,
if
we
require
the
cross
access
easement,
it
would
require
for
the
property
owner
of
the
southern
lot
to
allow
a
future
development
occurred
on
the
northern
lot,
for
them
to
be
able
to
cross
into
the
southern
lot
to
access.
Maple
grove
road.
C
J
Would
essentially
be
an
easement,
so
basically,
what
we
would
do
is
with
the
site
plan
for
the
the
property
would
have
to,
but
so
we'd
have
a
drive.
All
that
would
have,
but
the
northern
lot
here
and
basically
that
cross
access
easement
would
basically
state
that
you
know
if
development
happened
on
this
northern
lot,
that
people
then
would
be
able
to
cross
into
the
southern
lot
and
utilize,
the
eternal
driveways
within
the
southern
property
to
get
to
maple
grove
road.
C
So
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
is
trying
to
grant
that
access,
but
also
to
protect
the
existing
homeowners
as
much
as
possible.
So
I
guess
as
a
condition
of
approval,
we
could
restrict
the
number
of
feet
that
it
goes
in
before
it
makes
the
t
and
stops,
because
what
we
don't
want.
I
don't
want,
is
folks
entering
there
and
going
all
the
way
to
the
back
and
then
turning
up
into
that
lot.
That's
undeveloped
or
will
be
left
undeveloped.
So
could
we.
J
Do
that
actually,
mr
turkish
for
kenya,
for
the
people
on
the
southern
law?
Basically,
what
the
cross
access
instrument
would
do
is
actually
wouldn't
necessarily
allow
the
people
in
the
southern
lot
to
go
on
to
the
northern
lot.
The
cross-access
instrument
would
basically
be
for
this
northern
lot
to
go
into
the
southern
lot,
so
so
the
cross-access
season
that
can
be
done
in
a
way
that
the
that
the
southern
law
would
not
have
the
ability
to
go
into
the
northern
lot.
C
So
I'm
going
to
be
looking
at
all
staff
here
and
you
know
where
I'm
coming
from
right,
what
I'm
trying
to
get
to
so
I
don't
know
what
the
the
number
of
feet-
the
what's
the
dimensions
of
this
lot.
So
could
we
restrict
it
so
that
access
would
only
come
in?
You
know
a
reasonable
amount
of
you
know
like
12
15
feet
or
something
yeah.
L
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
kenyon,
if
you
were
concerned
about-
and
you
know
a
drive
aisle
up
close
to
the
the
homes
to
the
east,
you
could
you
could
specify
a
distance
that
that
cross-access
easement
will
occur
within
if
you'd,
like
that's,
certainly
an
option.
M
Chairman
commissioners
also
keep
in
mind
that,
when
that
northern
parcel
develops
achd
at
that
time
would
comment
on
that
specific
proposal
and
they
would
require
oboe
avenue,
be
the
roadway
that's
used,
because
it's
lower
capacity
roadway
so
by
granting
cross
access
on
this
site.
Now
you're
kind
of
putting
a
card
on
the
table
for
achieving
to
say,
hey,
you've
got
cross
access.
N
M
M
If
you're
going
to
require
cross
access,
it
would
probably
have
to
be
specifically
stated
to
only
allow
traffic
from
the
northern
parcel
to
travel
south
through
the
southern
parcel
and
not
vice
versa,
but
that
becomes
a
very
difficult
thing
to
regulate
down
the
road.
When
you
create
that
open
parking
area
and
drive
I'll
situation
so
and
we're.
C
Yeah,
okay
and
then,
since
we're
not
this
aptly
application
isn't
on
that
parcel.
We
we
couldn't
put
any
conditions
of
approval
on
that
parcel
correct.
Mr
chairman,
that's
correct,
yeah,
okay,
but
we
could,
on
this
site
in
that
little
area
there,
that
it
butts
up
against
the
back
yard
of
that
house.
M
M
O
D
B
Okay,
well,
I
thought
the
carrying
has
been
closed
on
this
on
this
application.
If
you
don't
have
it
is
there
any
other
questions
of
our
staff.
E
L
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
commissioner,
davidson
that's
the
concept
that
the
north
parcel
that
develops
the
the
users
of
that
site
would
be
able
to
cross
onto
the
south
parcel
and
access
maple
grove,
okay,.
C
Do
we
have
anyone
else
that
is
going
to
come.
B
B
C
A
little
deliberation
here
you
know
I
don't
like
to
put
restrictions
on
people's
property,
but
I
also
feel
that
this
board
needs
to
protect
existing
property
owners,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
strike
a
balance
here
so
based
on
staff.
C
Basically
on
that
north
lot,
when
it's
developed
into
a
subdivision,
so
my
motion
is
going
to
state
to
not
grant
that
access,
but
also
I'm
really
looking
at
trying
to
what
we
can
tonight
is
maybe
require
some
some
trees
or
a
fence
or
something
to
be
put
on
the
north
west
corner,
where
it
abuts
the
residential
backyard
to
provide
additional
protection
for
that
homeowner.
B
North
north
corner
right
there
of
the
of
the
property
I
mean.
C
Yeah,
I
could
make
a
motion
if
you're
ready,
yep.
C
Zc-D-A
msp
and
is
the
cross-easement
access
as
a
condition
of
approval
right
now,.
C
C
Okay,
so
whatever
that
distance
is
15
to
20
feet,
to
install
a
six
foot
high
fence
with
three
or
four
fairly
mature
trees,
starting
at
about
six
feet,
so
they
can
grow
up
even
taller
and
block
any
light.
B
Is
there
a
second
to
that
motion
I'll?
Second,
that
okay
is
staff
clear
on
the
on
the
motion.
L
Mr
chairman
christian,
I
believe
we
can
handle
this
with
just
your
motion.
We'll
strike
condition
of
approval
number
six.
Is
that
right,
brent
and
then
we'll
add
another
condition
24
to
cover
the
specifics
for
your
landscaping.
Screening.
B
C
B
B
J
Ms,
is
a
zone
ordinance
map
amendment
to
raise
on
approximately
1.44
acres
from
the
lo
district
to
the
r-20
district,
along
with
a
development
agreement,
a
vacation,
relocation
of
the
hess
laurel
easement.
In
addition,
a
master
site
plan
application
for
a
multi-family
development
consisting
of
16
apartments.
J
J
There
are
single
families
directly
to
the
east
and
west
of
the
cedric
property,
a
vacant
lot
to
the
south
and
a
common
lot
to
the
north
of
the
subject.
Property.
The
surrounding
area
consists
primarily
of
single-family
residential
dwellings.
There
is
a
gas
station
convenience
store
down
the
street
at
the
northwest
corner
of
cloverdale
and
lake
hazel,
a
religious
institution
at
the
southeast
corner
of
the
intersection
and
then
there's
a
golf
course.
That's
southwest
of
the
cloverdale
mchazel
road
intersection.
J
The
applicant
has
applied
for
a
zoning
orange
map
amendment
to
resume
approximately
1.44
acres
from
the
lo
district
to
the
r-20
district.
The
future
online
use
map
and
the
boise
comprehensive
plan
is
adopted
by
a
county
designates
the
property
as
commercial
which
lists
shopping,
centers,
hotels,
motels,
car
sales,
restaurants,
entertainment
and
outpatient
medical
services
as
primary
uses
and
housing
densities
of
up
to
43.5
units
per
acre
as
a
secondary
use,
as
the
proposed
r20
zone
has
a
maximum
density
of
up
to
20
knee
units
per
acre.
J
The
proposed
development
will
have
a
density
of
16
units
per
acre.
The
application
is
compatible
with
the
adopted
comprehensive
plan.
The
reason
to
the
r20
district
also
complies
with
the
purpose
statement
for
the
r-20
district.
The
general
purpose
statement
for
residential
districts
is
to
implement
the
applicable
comprehensive
plan
within
areas
of
city
impact,
providing
appropriate
density
for
residential
development
based
on
the
availability
of
urban
public
facilities
surrounding
land
uses
and
the
applicable
conference
of
plan
designation.
J
The
purpose
statement
for
the
r20
district
is
to
accommodate
multiple
family
dwellings,
including,
but
not
limited
to
town
homes
and
apartments.
The
project
also
includes
an
application
for
a
master
site
plan
to
construct
a
16-unit
multi-family
development.
The
development
will
consist
of
four
two-story
apartment
buildings.
Each
building
will
have
four
apartments.
The
apartments
are
two-bedroom
units.
J
J
There
has
been
rin
testimony
both
in
favor
and
against
the
proposed
project
for
neighboring
residents.
Those
in
favor
of
the
project
cite
the
need
for
additional
housing
in
a
county,
especially
housing
price
under
1900
per
month.
One
individual
spoke
through
their
role
as
an
employer
and
having
had
multiple
applicants
turn
on
job
offers,
due
to
not
being
able
to
find
affordable
housing
in
the
boise
area.
J
The
required
number
of
parking
spaces
for
multi-family
development
with
two
bedroom
units
is
two
parking
spaces
per
drawing
unit,
plus
0.25
parking
spaces
per
drawing
unit
for
visitors.
The
proposed
development
will
have
36
off
street
parking
spaces,
which
is
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance
in
exhibit
number
38.
There
is
a
reference
to
parking
problems
at
char
point
apartments.
The
number
of
parking
spaces
required
for
multi
multi-family
developments
in
the
zoning
ordinance
was
increased
in
2009
to
address
the
parking
deficiency
issue
that
was
experienced
at
char
point
apartments.
J
J
J
The
west,
a
school
district
estimates
that
the
development
will
generate.
Four
students,
the
a
county
highway
district,
responded
that
the
development
is
estimated
to
generate
108
additional
vehicle
trips
per
day.
Eight
additional
vehicle
trips
per
hour
in
the
p
and
peak
hour,
based
on
the
institute
of
transportation
engineers,
strip
generation
manual,
11th
edition
achd,
is
planning
to
widen
and
improve
the
cloverdale
lake
hazel
road
intersection
to
a
five
lane
by
five
lane
symbolized
intersection.
J
The
property
is
within
the
influence
area
of
the
intersection.
A
permanent
easement
in
lieu
of
driveway
dedication
will
be
granted
to
achd
in
this
easement
area
is
highlighted
by
yellow
there
on
the
screen
on
the
next
slide
shows
kind
of
the
lake
hazel
road
and
cleverdale
road
kind
of
intersection
area
of
improvements,
and
it's,
and
so
basically,
you
see
kind
of
the
relationship
of
all
the
improvements
at
that
intersection.
J
Key
conditions
of
approval
include
the
following:
access
into
the
site
shall
be
approved
by
achd.
The
marine
fire
district
must
approve
all
fire
flow
requirements.
The
applicant
will
need
to
revise
the
parking
plan
to
depict
bicycle
parking
facilities.
The
applicant
shall
submit
a
landscape
plan
that
complies
with
article
8-4-f
of
a
county
code.
The
applicant
shall
submit
a
lying
plan
that
complies
with
article
8-4-h
of
the
accounting
code.
J
C
Basically,
address
the
same
thing
since
this
apartment
complex,
would
be
biting
up
against
existing
single-family
residents.
Is
there
landscaping
a
current
landscaping
plan
for
some
protection
in
that
bath.
J
So
the
application
is
required
to
submit
so
that,
with
a
master
site
plan,
the
an
applicant
isn't
required
to
submit
landscape
plan
because
that
can
be
made
a
condition
of
approval.
So
the
applicant
has
deferred
in
some
manga
landscape
plan,
but,
as
you
did
with
the
other
previous
application,
commissioner
kenyon,
you
could
require
a
condition
that
requires
trees
along
the
let's
say,
the
west
property
line
to
screen
the
single-family
homes
from
the
multi-family
development.
C
Thank
you
and
mr
chair
just
for
clarification,
they're
guesstimating
that
there'd
be
only
about
four
students
and
I'm
assuming
that
the
their
school
capacity.
C
B
P
Six:
three:
four:
it's
just
that
we
we
own
the
three
lots
along
there
and
we
were
going
to
do
commercial
but
as
things
changed
with
everybody,
just
kind
of
working
from
home
in
that
with
the
covet
deal
that
didn't
make
sense
to
do
office
buildings
on
those
lots,
because
I
don't
think
we
could
lease
them.
So
we
decided
when
boise
city
told
us
that
they
had
changed
their
comprehensive
plan
and
that
that
we
could
go
ahead
and
do
four
plexes
in
there
and
ada
county
seemed
to
be
happy
with
it.
C
Mr
chair
of
the
question,
so
the
amount
of
rent
at
1900.
Where
does
that
come
from
and
is
that
something.
P
That
are
you
committed
to?
No,
it
won't
be
1900
or
probably
around
1600
1500.
You
know,
I
mean
I've
owned
the
same
project
before
and
we
were
getting
650,
and
so
I
mean
I
realized.
The
rents
have
gone
up,
but
I
think
it's,
I
think,
what
we
can
build
them
for
and
what
we
purchased
the
ground
for
we
can.
We
bought
the
ground
in
no
nine,
so
we
can
go
in
there
and
be
pretty
reasonable.
P
C
Addressing
the
existing
homeowners
on
that,
what
is
it
south
side.
P
It's
a
wood
fence,
okay
and
it's
it
was
built
by
rockhampton
when
they
built
the
subdivision.
P
C
Yeah,
so
what
kind
of
trees
could
you
propose
that
you
could
plant
along
there?
That
would
help
block
the.
P
Well,
we
had
some
trees
along
there
and
we
removed
them
because
the
roots
were
growing
down
under
the
fence
and
into
the
into
the
neighbors.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
kind
of
root
a
tree
we
can
grow
without
a
huge
root
ball.
You
know
that
will
penetrate
like
that,
but
I
mean
like
a
blue,
spruce
or
something
like
that
will
fill
in
pretty
heavily.
M
C
Not
a
lot
so
that's
kind
of
what
I
want
to
work
with
you
on
tonight.
Is
you
know
what
could
we
do
to
mitigate
any
market
value
concerns
or
whatever
from
the
neighbors
internment
privacy.
P
P
You
know
planting
trees
along
there
would
probably
sew
any
light
or
anything,
but
the
other
thing
is,
I
don't
think
you're
gonna
get
trees
in
there
from
a
second
story
that
you're
going
to
be.
You
know,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
kind
of
hard
to
get
trees,
to
get
tall
enough,
that
and
big
enough
and
without
having
problems
with
root
balls
and
that
when
you're
talking
about
a
two-story
building.
B
All
right
is
there
anyone
in
opposition
to
this
that
wants
to
lead
the
way
or
just
we
start
taking
public
comment.
B
There
we
have
tim
jollinson,
oh
no.
I
signed
up.
B
Oh
okay,
then
there's
that's
the
only
one
I
had
that
signed
up
under
this
under
this
application,
but
you
missed
you,
you
want
something
else:
okay!
Well,
that's
what
I
mean.
Okay,
all
right!
I
don't
care!
I
don't
hear
anybody
else
that
wants
to
to
discuss
this.
If
hearing
that
the
case,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
application,
202
200185,
zccda,
mspvac,.
C
Yes,
mr
trail
go
ahead
and
I'm
going
to
move
to
approve
application.
20220185.
C
Zcda
msp
bac,
based
on
the
testimony
given
here
tonight,
findings
of
facts
and
including
the
conditions
approval
listed
on
staff
report
on
page
eight,
but
I'd
like
to
add
one
that
the
applicant
work
with
staff
to
determine
the
appropriate
size
of
trees.
To
put
on
the
again
is
that
that
doesn't
look
like
the
south
property
line.
C
Property
line
and
again
we're
not
going
to
get
them
tall
enough
right
to
do
anything
on
the
second
story,
but
at
least
for
aesthetics
and
some
privacy
and
sound,
and
I
think
the
applicant
is
willing
to
do
that.
So
I'll.
Add
that
as
a
condition
of
approval.
B
Okay,
is
there
a
second
to
that
motion
I'll?
Second,
that
all
right?
Do
you
need
some
time
to
prepare
that
or
just
you
can
just
go
ahead
and.
B
Okay
well,
you've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,.
Q
B
Okay,
now
we
did
have
a
item
number
six
on
the
agenda.
We
moved
up
to
be
number
one
on
this
agenda
on
the
new
business
and
that
would
be.
C
Mr
chair,
we
might
note
that
we're
not
moving
this
for
any
other
reason,
except
for
there's
a
shot
clock,
there's
a
time
frame
that,
with
these
applications
that
we
have
to
abide
by,
so
we
just
didn't
want
to
run
the
risk
of
having
to
table
it
again.
So
that's
the
only
reason
we're
moving
it
up
in
that
agenda.
B
B
To
find
out,
we
found
out
during
the
hearing
that
there
was
another
tower
up
less
than
two
miles
away.
We
wanted
to
find
out
if
that
tower
was
was
sufficient
and
the
applicant
indicated
that
that
they
didn't
think
it
was
sufficient.
It
wasn't
sufficient,
and
so
that's
what
the
purpose
of
tonight's
hearing
is
to
determine
that
clark.
Wardle
will
get
12
minutes
for
the
presentation.
The
opposition
will
get
12
minutes
and
then
we'll
take
a
three-minute
public.
B
Testimony
after
which
clark
will
get
word,
will
get
five
minutes
for
a
for
a
rebuttal.
So
that's
the
ground
rules
for
for
tonight
and
again
the
testimony
should
be.
Is
the
co-location
sufficient
or
is
it
not?
That's
the
testimony
and
that's
what
we'll
take
tonight
so
we'll
get
a
staff
report.
First.
I
I
I
Here's
a
close-up
of
the
the
property
and
then,
if
you
recall,
the
original
proposed
location
was
a
little
more
south
than
this
red
square
on
your
screen,
based
on
comments
from
the
city
as
well
as
achd,
and
as
also
because
of
that
wetland
area,
it
had
to
be
moved
to
that
location.
There's
a
better
option
just
for
future
connectivity
for
floating
feather
to
go
further
to
the
west.
There
then
there's
the
proposed
tower
there
on
the
right.
It's
a
hundred
foot
tall
commercial
cell
tower,
that's
proposed,
and
then
here's
just
a
brief
application
history.
I
B
Okay
is
miss
clark
wardle
in.
R
Chairman,
can
you
hear
me.
R
Excellent,
actually,
my
name
is
josh
leonard
of
the
law
firm
of
clark
wordle.
My
address
is
251
east
front
street
suite
310
in
boise.
R
I
want
to
thank
the
board
for
granting
reconsideration
and
and
in
light
of
the
the
limited
scope
of
today's
public
hearing
and
with
the
board
having
a
very
full
agenda
this
evening,
I'm
just
going
to
jump
right
in
and
ask
chad
rydolg
an
att,
ran
engineer
and
rf
expert
to
review
whether
the
cell
power
located
in
canyon
county
can
be
used
to
co-locate
or
otherwise
remedy
the
significant
gap
in
coverage,
and
if
chad
chad
should
be
online
and
and
I'll,
let
him
just
take
the
remainder
of
the
the
applicant's
presentation.
B
Okay,
mr
chad,
rydel
are
you
there.
S
B
C
Chad,
could
you
tell
us
again
your
title
and
are
you
considered
an
expert
or
who
are
we
listening
to.
S
I
okay,
so
I
am
first
of
all
I'd
like
to
thank
the
board
of
commissioners
for
allowing
me
to
present.
I
should
be
sharing
the
screen.
My
name
is
chad
rydolch.
I
am
iran
engineer
for
at
t
wireless.
S
I've
been
responsible
for
engineering
installing
and
maintaining
following
types
of
systems
such
as
radio
systems,
repeater
systems,
paging
microwave
cellular,
pcs
and
also
mobile
equipment.
S
Personally,
I've
overseen
the
design
and
engineering
of
att
cellular
base
stations
since
2002
for
both
greenfield,
which
is
new
sites
in
new
areas
and
overlays
on
existing
networks.
My
comments
today
are
limited
just
to
considering
the
matter
of
the
cell
phone
tower
located
in
canyon
county.
S
That
josh
previously
mentioned
the
sba
tower
on
the
maps
we
referenced
this
as
c2,
and
those
are
the
documents
that
were
previously
provided
and
so
I'm
using
the
same
same
maps.
This
is
the
existing
canyon
county
tower.
That's
about
one
and
a
half
miles
almost
two
miles
from
the
proposed
tower.
It
will
not
work
for
our
needs.
There
are
two
main
reasons
for
this:
it
doesn't
address
the
coverage
gap.
Although
the
existing
sba
r
would
fill
in
a
portion
of
the
significant
gap
in
coverage,
it
would
not
fill
the
existing
gap.
S
If
att's
were
put
on
the
sba
tower,
we
would
still
need
another
facility
or
tower
to
fill
in
the
rest
of
that
gap.
Number
two
is
interference
cell
sites
where
you
reuse
the
same
frequencies
or
channels
each
tower.
You
reuse
as
the
same
channels.
This
sba
tower.
Is
we
like
to
name
a
boomer
site?
It's
it's
a
300
foot
site
on
the
side
of
a
hill.
These
boomer
sites
can
interfere
with
our
other
sites
because
they
see
so
far
and
the
coverage
overlaps.
S
We
try
not
to
have
our
coverage
overlap
because
it
causes
interference
by
minimizing
the
interference
with
other
cell
sites,
and
this
isn't
just
for
att.
It's
for
all
cell
phone
carriers.
We
can
improve
the
customer
experience
which
will
result
in
fewer
drop,
calls
increase
capacity
or
be
able
to
connect
more
customers
and
faster
data
speeds.
S
S
And
then
c2
would
offer
the
show
that
proposed
a
prediction
from
that
location.
The
sba
tower
I've
taken
the
two
maps,
the
vertical
bridge
and
the
sba
and
put
them
side
by
side-
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
compare.
S
S
B
C
S
C2,
so
it's
turned
on
on
the
slide
on
the
right
and
the
so
inside.
This
yellow
circle
is
our
coverage.
The
search
ring
the
gap
that
we're
trying
to
fill
so
yes,
the
c
coverage
is
the
proposed
site
and
then
the
c2
with
the
sba
tower
it
covers
up
here.
It's
not
where
we're
trying
to
cover,
and
you
can
see
we
still
would
continue
to
have
some
gaps
in
building
coverage.
That's
the
light
blue.
E
S
C
Mr
chair
and
the
c3
site
was
the
original
proposed
site,
but
there's
that's
one:
that's
by
the
wetlands.
S
I
No,
madam
chair
or
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
beck
chairman
beck,
mr
chair
commissioner
kenyon
the
c3
site,
is
it's
not
related
to
this
application,
though
the
wetland
issue
is
specifically
for
this
sea
site,
it's
within
the
site
itself
and.
B
Right
well,
I
would
have
I
have
a
question
for
you.
The
purpose
of
this
hearing
tonight
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
is
sufficient
coverage
from
the
c2
tower
correct
and
you've
indicated
that
there
is
not,
and
you
have
these
light
blue
shading
to
demonstrate.
That's,
that's!
That's
the
significant
lack
of
coverage.
How
did
you
determine
that
fact.
S
Okay,
so
a
t,
we
use
a
tool,
it's
a
computer
simulation
tool.
It's
it's
called
atol,
it's
by
a
company
called
forsk,
and
this
is
a
tool
specifically
for
propagation
studies.
S
We
we
bail,
we
build
a
modeling
environment,
it's
based
on
the
local
terrain,
elevation
ground
height,
what
we
call
ground
clutter,
which
describes
what's
on
the
ground
at
a
specific
location
which
could
be
houses,
residential
buildings,
industrial
open
grassland
that
just
categorizes
the
type
of
ground.
That's
there
at
t
uses
a
company
called
net
scout,
and
this
company
goes
out
and
calibrates
our
propagation
models
by
setting
up
test,
transmitters
and
then
driving
the
local
market.
S
They
they
drive
in
each
market,
so
the
the
model
is
tuned
for
the
local
market
and
they
create
for
us
in
idaho,
they've
created
rural
mountain
and
urban
and
some
of
our
bigger
cities.
Where
it's
much
more
dense.
You
know
a
lot
more
concrete.
They
provide
additional
information.
These
maps
are
they're
averaged
at
20
square
meter
resolution.
So
we
calculate
how
the
the
path
loss
signal
coming
from
the
tower.
We
lose
energy
as
it
travels
through
the
air.
S
We
lose
energy
as
it
passes
through
trees,
we
lose
energy
as
it
passes
through
into
a
building,
and
we
come
up
with
a
prediction
of
how
strong
we
believe
the
signal
will
be
in
the
quality
of
service.
In
these
maps,
we
chose
to
represent
the
quality
of
service
by
just
showing
colors
the
dark
green.
Let
me
back
up
aside
to
dark
green
would
be
good
in
building
coverage
included
a
legend
here.
A
good
in
building
his
dark,
green
good
in
vehicle
would
be
a
lighter,
green
and
good
outdoor
is
blue.
S
It's
it's
a
complicated
model.
It's
it's!
We
basically
use
a
you
know
big
server
farm
of
computers.
To
do
these
plots.
You
know
it's
like
any
computer
model.
They
we
we
give
it
as
accurate
information
as
we
can
and
we
expect
an
accurate
result
and
in
some
ways
it's
kind
of
like
a
you
know,
a
complex
weather,
forecasting
tool.
You
know
we
we
make
a
sound
based
on
science
calculation,
but
there
can
be
airs.
S
We
are
averaging
a
20
meter
square.
We
don't
know
what
every
home
is
built
of,
for
example,
if
it
has
a
metal
roof
versus
an
asphalt
shingle
roof
we'd
obviously
have
more
trouble
getting
into
a
home
with
a
metal
roof
than
an
asphalt,
shingle
roof.
We
don't
have
that
kind
of
detail,
but
we
would
average
in
and
have
a
very
good
idea
of
what
to
expect.
S
No
sometimes
we
call
them
umbrella
sites,
it's
just
they
they
boom.
They
put
out
a
signal
that
just
covers
a
large
area
and
with
our
cellular
network,
because
we
try
and
reuse
the
channels.
You
know
we
use
the
exact
same
channel
at
every
cell
site.
We
don't
want
the
channels
to
overlap
it's
kind
of
like
if
you're
talking
on
a
two-way
radio
and
two
people
talk
at
the
exact
same
time
on
that
radio,
the
person
trying
to
listen,
it
gets
garbled.
S
So
what
we
try
to
do
is
minimize
the
overlap
so
that
the
towers
we
can
work
with
some
interference,
but
we
don't
want
to
cause
more
than
we
can
work
with
and
by
having
a
site.
That's
up
high
on
a
mountain
covering
a
large
population
such
as
this.
You
know
the
the
site
is
up
on
the
hillside
and
it
would
be
you
know,
covering
star
inc
and
the
surrounding
areas.
It
could
cause
interference
with
the
other,
the
other
towers
that
are
already
providing
service.
S
B
E
So
one
of
our
concerns
has
been
that
you
know
when
we
just
see
maps
like
this
in
different
colors.
We
don't
have
the
the
data
behind
it
or
the
numbers
behind
it,
which
we
wouldn't
really
be
able
to
interpret
as
layman,
even
if
we
did,
which
is
why
we're
talking
about
you
know
bringing
in
you
know
neutral
consultants.
You
know
as
we
move
forward,
but
what
kind
of
data
do
you
have
that
that
backs
up
the
maps?
You
know
what
kind
of
format
is
it?
S
So
we
we
do
something
very
similar.
I
don't
know
if
you're
familiar
with
the
the
firstnet
project,
which
is
a
first
responder
network
yeah
and
in
that
particular
case,
because
it's
a
national
contract,
we
do
open
up
our
data
to
a
third
party
vendor
to
provide
firstnet
with
maps
based
on
our
our
data,
which
includes
you
know:
where
are
the
towers
physically
located
how
tall
are
the
antennas,
what
model
of
antenna
etc?
S
Internally,
we
use
the
phones
that
are
on
the
network
report,
how
well
they're
doing
on
the
network.
They
report
whether
they're
taking
errors,
if
they're
at
risk
of
dropping
a
call
if
they
drop
a
call.
S
Even
some
of
the
apps
that
you
install
can
monitor
how
well
the
cell
phone
network
is
providing
connectivity
for
their
apps
and
we
take
that
information
and
we
can
verify
our
maps
and
we
do
do
that.
We
verify
that
the
customers
are
experiencing
quality
where
we
say
they
are,
and
then
we
can
also
identify
where
customers
are
having
trouble,
and
then
we
set
out
to
to
resolve
that.
B
D
B
There
is
some
opposition
to
this,
and
whoever
wants
to
represent
the
opposition
will
give
you
the
same
12
minutes.
Is
that
going
to
be
you,
mr
de
haas,
okay,.
I
B
T
First
of
all,
what
you
just
hear,
if
we
just
heard,
is
again
what
I
would
call
smoke
and
mirrors
the
best
accurate
data
that
you
can
have
is
drop
call
records,
but
yet
you
just
heard
them
say
that
this
is
all
proprietary,
there's
no
actual
factual
data
on
these
towers.
How
can
we
refute
that?
In
our
last
testimony,
we
actually
brought
you
readings
that
we
took
out
in
that
county
in
a
big
circle
of
the
actual
amount
of
signal
strength
in
those
areas
for
phones.
T
They
have
not
brought
any
actual
data
to
you
other
than
to
say
you.
We
have
a
modeling
computer,
which
anybody
can
program
that.
How
can
you
trust
that
data
that'd
be
like
a
builder
coming
to
you
with
a
plans
for
a
big
new
courthouse
with
no
actual
data
on
the
concrete
structure?
The
technical
use
of
how
much
power
is
in
that
building
how
deep
the
concrete,
how
thick
the
steel
and
so
forth?
You
don't
have
this,
it's
very
important
as
congress.
We
got
evidence
today
from
the
tower
up
on
the
hill
at
24.
T
0
84
blessing
your
road
that
they
have
room
for
an
atnt
tower
to
coloptic
there.
So
far,
they
still
have
not
provided
any
evidence
whatsoever
that
this
is
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
and
that's
important,
not
in-home
coverage
not
in
a
car
coverage.
That's
all
hypothetical,
the
fcc,
the
law
states,
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
must
be
proven.
T
They
have
not
proven
a
significant
capital,
not
a
little
bit
of
gap,
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
and
it's
for
making
outdoor
calls.
That's
what
the
law
reads:
they're,
trying
to
bring
you
up
something
else
that
they
must
be
able
to
provide
in-home
well
in
home.
You
have
wireless
communication
devices,
you
have
fiber
optics
and
cable
that
you
can
hook
to
there's
lots
of
ways
to
continue
to
get
calls
inside
a
home.
I'm
I'ma
now
turn
my
time
to
paul
mcgavin.
Thank
you.
U
I
get
that
up
on
screen.
Okay
and
now
I
have
to
open
up
system
preferences
to
somehow
make
this
work.
So
just
give
me
a
second
again:
please
don't
take
my
time
away.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
in
the
best
position
to
give
you
the
best
information
to
make
a
good
decision
all
right,
so
I'm
going
to
add
to
I
have
to
quit
and
reopen
to
share.
That
means
I
have
to
leave
the
event
to
come
back
in.
U
B
C
Mr
chair,
yes,
we're
waiting.
Was
this
information
he's
going
to
share
submitted
to
us.
I
Commissioner,
can
you
know
I'm
I'm
not
aware
of
what
mr
mcgavin
is
going
to
share?
Mr
de
haas
did
just
provide
me
with
an
exhibit
that
I
will
add
into
the
record,
as
exhibit
number
13.,
so
this
will
be
provided
in
the
staff
report
moving
forward.
C
B
All
right,
are
you
ready
to
go
mister.
U
All
right
perfect,
so
I
test
and
affirm
that
the
following
is
true
and
accurate
and
within
my
personal
knowledge,
I'm
here
to
give
you
actual
evidence,
something
that
a
t
and
this
this
applicant
has
not
given
you.
It
is
extremely
important
that
they
do
actual
measurements
of
your
community.
I
don't
believe
you
got
a
really
good
answer.
What
that
person
said
was
they
went
out
to
areas
in
rural
areas
of
idaho
and
certain
cities,
not
your
specific
town.
U
So
I
think
you
really
should
understand
exactly
what
they
told
you
there,
but
they
did
not
come
out
to
star
idaho
and
take
measurements
of
star
idaho,
they're,
taking
general
measurements
and
they're
trying
to
extrapolate
from
it.
I
know
all
the
games
these
people
play
because
I
work
with
the
top
attorneys
in
the
country.
I
am
an
expert
at
measuring
and
mitigating
microwave
radiation.
We
defeat
many
many
cell
towers
that
are
unnecessary,
such
as
this
one
across
the
country,
and
why
is
that?
U
Because
we
understand
what
the
definition
of
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
actually
is,
and
it's
not
at
all
what
they're
telling
you
it
is,
and
that
is
because
we
have
evidence
to
show
you
what
it
is
okay.
So
what
we
need
to
do
for
you
is
critique
expert,
jay,
shadrillex
declaration,
because
he
made
his
written
declaration
under
penalty
of
perjury.
That
is
important
to
you.
That
means
what
he
said
must
be
true.
Unfortunately,
in
his
written
statement
he
made
statements
that
were
not
true.
U
He
does
tell
you
the
kinds
of
frequencies
that
he's
trying
to
put
on
these
towers
and
what
you
can
tell
and
conclude
from
this
that
every
single
tower
on
this
map
can
actually
service
his
needs,
particularly
for
what
we're
talking
about
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
in
telecommunications
service.
That
requires
very
little
power,
very
little
nine
orders
of
magnitude
less
than
what
the
what
the
government
allows.
This
is
millions
and
billions
of
times
lower.
Any
single
tower
in
the
area
will
do
the
job.
U
In
fact,
the
one
that
has
space
on
it
today
will
do
the
job
any
third
party,
but
non-biased
person
can
tell
you
that
I'm
telling
you
right
now
what
they
did
is
they
defined
a
search
ring
in
the
vicinity
of
north
star
row
from
west
floating
river
down
to
west
state
street.
So
you
go
today
to
att's
map
and
you
ask
yourself
well,
what's
the
deal
here?
What
does
it
show?
Oh
full
coverage,
all
the
blue
is
full
coverage.
U
You
could
go
to
that
map
yourself
and
you
will
see
that
it
is
full
coverage,
and
so
what
does
that
mean?
That
means
there's
no
gap
in
coverage
all
right,
and
so
that
has
proven
because
they
don't
understand
or
they're
trying
to
sell
you
a
redefinition
of
significant
gap
in
coverage,
which
is
not
legal.
U
What
I
will
show
you
is
where
this
definition
actually
is
established
in
the
law,
and
this
is
the
one
that
you
must
consider
and
the
one
that
you
must
consider
is
the
one
that
is
actually
in
their
disclaimer
outdoor
phone
coverage
and
they
themselves
are
representing
to
the
world
today.
There's
a
hundred
percent
outdoor
phone
coverage
in
star
idaho
all
parties
agree,
there's
no
significant
gap
in
coverage
and
outdoor
phone
coverage
anywhere.
U
So
that's
the
important
point,
because
that's
the
definition
that
came
straight
out
of
the
ninth
circuit
court
of
appeals.
The
definition
does
not
include
bin
building
coverage
in
vehicle
coverage
or
any
wireless
information
service.
As
part
of
the
definition,
and
that
is
the
truth
of
the
matter,
I
have
the
links
to
the
actual
cases
right
here.
I
have
quoted
the
actual
words
below
you
have
to
understand
that
they
are
outside
the
law
when
they
try
to
tell
you
they
must
have
in
building
coverage.
It's
not
true.
U
It's
not
legal,
although
it's
a
business
goal,
sure
is
it
something
you
have
to
allow
them
to
provide?
No
do
they
have
any
way
to
overcome
your
local
decision
to
say
no,
we
have
enough
coverage.
No,
you
have
every
right
to
say
I
can
mitigate
and
not
have
to
have
these
unnecessary
over
burdensome
towers
in
residential
areas,
because
towers
that
are
far
away
on
top
of
hills.
Get
the
job
done.
That's
the
key
point.
You
can
decide
exactly
how
you
do
broadband.
Why
is
that?
U
In
2019
there
was
a
lawsuit
and
it
was
actually
lost
by
the
fcc.
What
happened?
There
was
a
reclassifying
of
broadband
as
information
services,
the
fcc
placed
broadband
outside
of
its
title
ii,
jurisdiction
and
broadband
is
not
a
radio
transmission
under
title
iii
or
cable
service,
so
the
express
authority
doesn't
apply
either.
The
point
was
to
say
that
this
is
no
longer
regulated,
meaning
very
specifically,
they
have
no
preemption
for
it.
If
you
can
place
an
outdoor
phone
call,
you
have
no
significant
gap
in
coverage
peer
at
the
end.
U
That
is
what
every
single
judge
will
rule
once
you
take
it
in
front
of
them.
They
are
telling
you
all
kinds
of
stories
you
are
listening
to
them.
They
sound
logical.
They
sound
convincing
they're,
reasonable
sounding
people.
It's
just
they're,
not
actually
representing
the
law
properly.
Okay,
look
metropcs
is
where
this
comes
from,
it's
the
city
of
san
francisco
and
again-
and
this
is
what
they
say-
this
is
for
a
wireless
telecommunications
antenna,
nothing
else,
a
wireless
telecommunications
antenna
that
has
a
specific
definition.
U
They
also
say
the
basic
fastest
gates
are
not
in
dispute.
Metropcs
was
the
provider
of
wireless
telecommunications
service
once
again,
not
information
service,
telecommunications
service.
All
right.
The
whole
thing
is
about
telecommunications.
The
whole
thing
is
set
up
for
telecommunications.
That
is
only
the
making
of
a
wireless
outdoor
phone
call.
That
is
it.
U
So
the
problem
is
that
in
his
sworn
affidavit,
for
which
he
is
under
perjury
control
and
penalty,
he
is
now
including
three
paragraphs
of
wireless
industry,
propaganda
from
the
ctia,
the
trade
association.
These
statements
can
be
provably
falsified,
and
so
what
we
are
saying
is
this
is
a
big
problem
for
him.
If
he
heads
to
court
here,
and
so
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
have
to
tell
the
truth
in
any
statement
where
you're
under
penalty
of
perjury
you
have
to
let
you
know
that
you
can't
shade
things.
You
can't
say
things
like.
U
U
You
can
protect
your
residents
from
getting
all
this
wireless
radiation
by
saying
it's
an
inappropriate
spot
for
a
cell
tower.
That's
the
important
point
so
whether
he
uses
a
tool
or
doesn't
use
the
tool.
The
key
thing
is
that
he
said
words
which
were
important
and
those
words
are
what
he
said
about
data
that
we've
already
put
in
your
record,
and
that
is
that
he
took
went
ahead
and
took
a
look
at
hank
allen's
data,
all
right,
hank's,
allen's
data
is
right
up
here
in
these
pictures.
U
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
show
you
that,
even
though
they
went
through
these
little
coverage
maps
and
even
they're
showing
a
proliferation
of
cell
towers,
when
you
get
here,
bang
he
says,
and
I'll
quote
the
words
right
for
you.
You
know,
hank
state
is
actually
accurate,
says
it
right
in
his
written
document.
He
agrees
that
it
can.
U
This
means
that
there's
no
need
for
this
tower
at
all,
and
that
is
the
finding
that
you
can
make
tonight
is
that
by
the
evidence
in
the
record,
which
includes,
in
addition,
mr
lind
went
out
and
made
phone
calls
it's
on
video.
Do
you
have
this
in
your
record?
It's
written
evidence
showing
him
making
phone
calls
at
multiple
locations
all
through
the
area,
everyone
he
can
make
a
phone
call.
The
point
is
there
is
no
significant
gap
in
coverage.
The
evidence
is
in
the
record.
U
This
is
the
evidence
that
you
can
cite
and
by
not
doing
so,
then
you're
not
actually
working
to
balance
as
they
designed
the
telecommunications
act
right.
So
he
is
confidently
saying:
there's
a
significant
gap,
yet
he
hasn't
brought
any
evidence
proving
anyone.
All
he's
doing
is
inputting
numbers
into
a
computer
program
and
telling
you
believe
me
believe
me
believe
me.
U
U
Absolutely
a
defining
you
can
make
tonight
is
based
on
the
evidence
in
the
record.
The
evidence
shows
and
is
agreed
to
by
all
parties.
There
is
no
significant
gap
in
coverage,
meaning
you
don't
have
to
go
to
stage
two
of
least
intrusive
means,
meaning
you
can
just
simply
deny
the
tower
for
that
finding
and
you
can
spend.
B
You
thanks,
sir,
I
did.
I
would
have
a
question
for
you
because,
because
the
whole
hearing
this
evening
is
rather
the
the
location
of
this
tower
and
see,
what
does
it
see
to
does
that
provide
a
gap
in
coverage?
That's
the
question
here
not
the
tower
that
they're
that
they
were
originally
proposing.
The
question.
C
One
of
these,
sir,
your
testimony
is
up.
I
think
the
chair
was
very
clear
about
what
the
testimony
was
supposed
to
be
focused
on
tonight.
So
thank
you.
Okay,.
B
You,
like
the
answer.
Okay,
thank
you,
sir.
We
got.
We
got
the
the
we
got
an
answer.
Okay,
we
will
now
take
public
testimony.
Yeah.
E
B
I
Yeah
all
right,
actually,
mr
chair,
I'm
gonna,
enter
in,
so
the
mr
de
haas's
exhibit
that
he
provided
me
is
exhibit
13..
I
am
going
to
enter
in
the
applicant's
presentation,
as
exhibit
14
and
then
mr
mcgavin's
presentation,
as
exhibit
15.
E
Yes,
since
the
last
appellant
presented
a
lot
of
legal
testimony,
I'm
wondering
if
the
attorney
for
the
cell
tower,
if
he
is
planning
to
give
testimony,
could
be
next
yeah.
C
So,
mr
chair,
if
anyone
signed
up
for
individual
testimony
tonight,
we
might
want
to
state
again,
don't
repeat
what
you've
already
said
in
the
first,
when
you
provide
a
testimony
in
the
last
public
hearing
and
keep
it
just
to
the
canyon
county
cell
tower
in
question.
B
C
And
they
were
well,
but
he
was
representing.
He
stated
that
he
was
representing
the
safe
net
safe
technology
group.
C
E
But
well.
X
X
All
right
perfect!
So
when
it
comes
to
that
tower
the
sba
tower
within
the
last
couple
weeks
I
reached
out
to
the
owner
of
the
tower
and
they
have
room
on
the
tower,
and
I
submit
that
into
evidence
that
there
there's
they
have
capacity
of
that
plenty
of
room
and
they're
more
than
willing
to
to
rent
out
space
on
their
tower.
To
att.
X
That's
that's
there
in
the
evidence
and
then
also
I
went
out
with
with
william
the
the
original.
What
do
you
call
it
appellant
and
we
we
went
through
the
the
area
where
they're
claiming
there's
a
significant
gap
with
william's
phone.
It's
a
att
cell
phone
and
there
was
not
a
gap
in
coverage.
We
were
able
to
make
phone
calls
in
every
location
by
five
different
locations
and
then
actually
you
know
there
was
there's
plenty
of
coverage.
So
this
this
word
significant
gap
in
outdoor
coverage.
It
just
doesn't
exist.
X
X
We
can
make
a
call
outdoor,
there's
nothing
needed
here,
okay,
but
I,
when
it
comes
to
designing
a
good
wireless
network
for
our
community,
I
like
the
idea
of
using
a
boomer
tower
up
on
top
of
the
mountain
and
let's
go
ahead
and
broadcast
all
of
18t
verizon
and
t-mobile
and
tear
down
the
rest
of
the
towers
they're
down
in
the
valley
that
are
too
close
to
people.
X
X
The
last
little
part
here
that
I
would
like
to
talk
about
is
in
their
finding
that
the
commissioners
can
make
tonight
is
that
there
is
substantial
written
evidence
in
the
record
that
shows
that
title
ii,
wireless
telecommunications
services
and
title
one
wireless
information
services
are
the
distinctively
different
activities.
The
former,
which
is
the
title
ii,
qualifies
for
a
limited
preemption
of
local
authority.
X
B
B
Y
Yeah,
absolutely
so
I
am
an
electromagnetic
radiation
specialist
practicing
here
in
the
treasure
valley
for
the
past
four
years,
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
the
what
mr
allen
said
and
mr
de
haas,
I
have
taken
many
many
many
measurements
in
the
area
with
my
professional
equipment
and
I
have
not
found
any
gap
in
coverage
in
in
the
area
that
they
are
trying
that
they're
proposing
that
they
need
more
coverage
for,
and
there
is
definitely
a
difference
between
in
building
and
outside,
and
that's
why
people
have
you
know
wi-fi
and
internet
and
things
inside
their
homes.
B
Okay,
allison
dean
online
or
here
nope,
not
here,
not
online.
Okay,
we
have.
B
Good
evening,
okay,
you've
got
you
got
three
minutes.
Let
me
limit
your
testimony
to
whether
the
cell
tower
c2
has
given
sufficient
coverage.
K
My
name
is
dr
ann
hike.
I've
been
a
medical
doctor
for
40
years,
30
in
emergency
room
and
a
30
in
family
practice.
It's
ironic
that
I'm
not
speaking
to
you
about
the
medical
effects
of
this,
but
I
attest
and
affirm
that
the
following
statements
are
true,
accurate
and
within
my
personal
knowledge.
Here
is
a
finding
that
the
ada
county
commissioners
can
make
tonight.
K
The
applicant
did
not
enter
sufficient,
verifiable,
substantial
written
evidence
in
the
record
to
prove
that
at
t
has
a
significant
gap
in
wireless
telecommunications
service
in
the
target
area
of
the
proposed
wireless
telecommunication
facility.
I
express
no
matters
of
concern,
but
it's
only
matters
of
substance
fact
and
law.
Thank
you.
B
D
Z
Yes,
my
name
is
vivian
loffrey
resident
of
ada
county
for
28
years
I
had
tested
and
affirmed
that
the
following
statements
are
true,
accurate
and
within
my
personal
knowledge,
and
I'm
asking
you
to
uphold
your
original
decision
and
I'll
review.
Some
of
the
findings
that
others
have
have
stated
tonight
that
the
commissioners
can
make,
and
these
are
findings
that
will
not
be
overturned
in
a
federal
court
for
the
1996
telecommunications
act
or
tca
us
code.
Z
Section
332,
c7b3,
any
decision
by
a
state
or
local
government
or
instrumentally
thereof,
to
deny
a
request
to
place,
construct
or
modify
personal
wireless
services.
Service
facilities
shall
be
in
writing,
supported
by
substantial
evidence
contained
in
a
written
record,
and
you
have
all
that
your
written
record
for
this
particular
application.
Z
Some
of
the
findings
that
are
fault
that
follow
are
based
on
substantial
evidence
contained
in
the
ada
county,
written
record
and
and
I'm
not
going
to
review
all
of
them
just
for
the
sake
of
your
time.
But
ada
county
residents
entered
sufficient
substantial
written
evidence
to
prove
that
at
t
does
not
have
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
in
wireless
telecommunications
facility.
Z
Since
the
substantial
written
evidence
in
the
record
shows
that
ada
county
res
a
ada
county
residents
this
week
placed
wireless
phone
calls
on
att's
network
and
b,
a
t
and
t
brought
no
records
of
calls
placed
or
dropped
in
the
last
12
months
in
the
target
area.
To
contravene
this
evidence,
then
we
find
that
at
t
does
not
have
a
significant
gap
in
wireless
telecommunications
service
and
therefore
has
no
basis
to
overturn
ada
county's
earlier
decision
to
deny
the
proposed
wireless
telecommunications
facility.
Z
B
Thank
you
lisa.
You
have
three
minutes
and
keep
your
testimony
to
rather
cell
tower.
C2
has
sufficient
coverage.
A
B
Minutes,
thank
you
limit
your
comments
to
just
brother.
A
A
A
I've
got
neighbors
that
have
said
the
same
thing,
allowing
a
t
to
prove
their
need
for
coverage
by
using
a
computer
program,
and
an
algorithm
is
a
bit
like
letting
the
fox
guard
the
hen
house.
They
have.
They
have
shot
down
the
cell
tower
up
on
the
hill
at
the
blessing,
your
property
site,
and
they
are
only
pushing
what
they
want,
which
is
down
in
a
decided
residential
area
that
decidedly
gets
coverage.
A
A
They've
they've
not
proven
their
case.
They
don't
bring
hard
data,
I'm
a
scientist
I
function
on
hard
data
and
and
to
say
we
can't.
We
can't
give
you
that
information
doesn't
cut
it
with
me,
bring
hard
data,
and
now
we've
got
people
providing
hard
data.
I
just
I
would
just
ask
that
you
would
consider
the
the
optics
of
allowing
this
giant
conglomerate
to
come
in
and
say:
no.
We
don't
like
that
tower
up
there.
A
A
So
I
thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
I
would
ask
that
you
would
deny
the
cell
tower
location
where
they're
trying
to
put
it.
Thank
you
thank.
D
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
have
no
one
else
online.
B
I
have
a
david
bank
benion,
no
okay.
Well,
that
concludes
the
public.
Testimony
that's
been
requested.
I
guess
I
didn't
I'm
new.
I
didn't
write
my
name.
AB
AB
Has
anyone
considered
that
it's
overkill
coverage,
because
now
my
house
is
getting
hit
from
both
sides?
If
you
have
a
cell
tower,
like
my
house,
is
right
in
the
middle
of
what's
proposed,
so
that's
a
concern
of
mine.
It's
also
on
the
same
plane
of
star
elementary
school,
which
is
where
kids
reside.
So
the
concern
is
like.
AB
Is
there
an
overkill
in
coverage
and
then
I've
never
dropped
a
call
in
my
neighborhood
or
anywhere
in
store
for
that
matter.
In
the
two
years
that
I've
lived
there,
I
don't
have
a
six-year-old
phone.
I
think
mine's
only
four
euros,
but
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
B
B
AC
AD
My
name
is
kevin
kloss,
I'm
a
former
captain
united
states
air
force
and
also.
H
AD
Also
a
trained
physicist
that
served
as
not
only
just
in
the
air
force,
but
also
as
a
civil
servant.
AD
I
testified
before,
and
I
was
happy
that
we
were
able
to
stall
this
tower
but
looks
like
it's
creeped
his
ugly
head
up
again
and
there
is
still
no
propagation
study
other
than
what
was
done
by
idahoans
for
safe
technology.
I
have
done
propagation
studies,
I've
done
them
out
in
in
the
suny
triangle
of
iraq.
I've
done
them
in
yuma,
arizona,
I've
done
them
at
wright,
patterson
air
force
base,
I've
done
them
in
fort
monmouth,
new
jersey,
I've
also
consulted
with
the
program
executive
office
of
information
warfare
and
technology
systems.
AD
This
is
when
I
hear
things
like
proprietary
computer
generated
propagation
studies.
That
is
not
sat,
and
if
I
went
to
my
commander
during
one
of
these,
when
we
were
trying
to
deploy
weapon
systems,
he
would
have
crucified
me
and
you
have
to
get
out
there.
You
have
to
get
out
there.
You
have
to
have
a
human
being
out
there
to
measure
these
and
have
recorded
data
now.
AD
So
there
is
no
significant
gap
of
coverage
and
I
hope
that
has
been
demonstrated
and
I'll
reiterate
that
and
computer
generated
programs,
propagation
studies
that
are
done
digitally
do
not
suffice
and
also
just
in
general.
AD
I
quite
I
find
it
quite
alarming
how
these
towers
can
just
pop
up
with
very
little
oversight,
and
I
can
understand
how
there's
been
kind
of
a
bad
taste,
but
in
people's
mouth,
when
we
had
5g,
conspiracies
and
tinfoil
had
people.
Unfortunately,
they
got
the
first
word,
but
now
the
tide
is
turning
and
we're
actually
seeing
the
results
of
this
and
we're
actually
seeing
the
health
effects
that
are
damaging
real
living
human
beings.
AD
Okay,
well
back
to
that
cell
tower,
as
as,
as
part
of
that,
we
will,
I
mean,
as
a
result,
it's
either
gonna
have
to
be
shut
down
in
the
future
and
you're
gonna
have
to
pay
money.
For
that,
so
I
say:
stop
it
now.
I
still
can't,
and
also
I'd
like
to
take
the
moment
to
to
urge
that
we
have
some
form
of
independent
propagation
study
for
all
towers
in
the
future.
Technology
is
changing,
it's
getting
more
complex
and
more
dangerous.
Thank
you.
For
your
time.
All.
Q
B
Q
Based
on
what
I've
heard
here
tonight
it
I
don't
feel
that
the
applicant
did
provide
significant
any
evidence
for
significant
gap
in
coverage
and
as
an
eight
accounting
resident.
I
don't
want
a
new
cell
tower
that'll
obscure
our
views,
lower
property
values
and
expose
us
to
unnecessary
wireless
radiation.
Thank
you.
B
B
G
R
Yeah
yeah
members
of
the
board.
This
is
josh
leonard
again,
okay,
oh
josh,
before
the
I'm
gonna
go
through
a
little
bit
of
what
they
they
mentioned,
then
I'm
gonna
turn
it
back
over
to
shad
to
to
show
another
propagation
map.
I
I
need
to
start
off
by
saying
that
that
it
in
all
of
that,
the
testimony
that
you
heard
from
the
wireless
opponents
there
was
only
there
were
only
maybe
two
statements
made
that
were
relevant
to
tonight's
question.
R
The
limited
question
before
the
board,
mr
de
haas,
for
example,
simply
repeated
his
testimony
from
earlier
hearings.
I
was
not
relevant
to
the
narrowly
limited
issue
which
was,
which
is
whether
the
cell
tower
located
in
canyon
county
can
be
used
to
co-locate
or
otherwise
remedy
the
significant
gap
in
coverage.
R
There's
been
a
lot
of
testimony
about
the
significant
gap
been
covered
and
whether
or
not
it
exists.
That's
not
the
question
that
the
board
limited
tonight's
public
hearing
to
the
the
board
limited
tonight's
public.
D
R
That
significant
gap
can
be
resolved
by
that
that
canyon
county
tower
that
existing
tower.
I
wanted
to
mention
really
quickly.
Mr
mcgavin
made
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
noise
about
the
the
coverage
map.
That's
on
att's
website.
He.
He
failed
to
note
the
numerous
caveats
and
disclaimers
that
accompany
that
online
coverage.
Chart
I'd
like
to
just
briefly
read
a
couple
of
them.
It
says
it
right
under
that
this
map
displays
approximate
outdoor
coverage.
Actual
coverage
may
vary,
coverage
isn't
guaranteed.
R
R
It
then
says
att
does
not
guarantee
coverage
and
then
finally,
our
coverage
maps
are
not
intended
to
show
actual
customer
performance
on
the
network
or
future
network
needs
in
that
in
that
instance,
and
again
we're
talking
about
the
the
coverage
map
that
that
mr
mcgavin
showed
showing
the
the
that
there
was
coverage
throughout
this
area.
With
the
caveats,
there
is
still
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
again,
that
is
outside
tonight's
scope,
though
I
also
wanted
to
make
a
point.
R
As
a
for-profit
company
att
doesn't
want
to
put
up
additional
antennas,
they
need
to
there's
no
financial
incentive
to
add
them
they're
expensive,
but
it's
it
needs
to
add
antennas
for
capacity
and
to
fill
its
its
gap
in
coverage.
R
The
other
thing
I'd
note
about
mr
mcgavin's
testimony
is
he
failed
to
know
what
his
qualifications
were?
He
only
said
that
he
works
with
wireless
attorneys.
I
don't
think
that's
any
qualification
at
all.
Frankly,
I
just
don't
know
whether
he's
an
engineer,
a
lawyer
or
what
happened.
R
I'd
also
note
that
that
all
of
the
coverage,
all
the
all
the
cover,
all
the
comments
that
actually
addressed
the
issue,
that's
before
the
the
board
tonight
referenced
only
outdoor
coverage,
and
by
that
I
mean
mr
allen,
using
mr
lindsay
t
phone
determined
whether
it
was
outdoor
coverage
and
and
earlier.
Mr
mcgavin
had
said
that
there
was
the
standard
in
federal
court
is
only
related
to
out
what
the
ability
to
make
outdoor
calls.
That's
absolutely
incorrect
after
the
the
federal
communication
commission's
2018
order.
R
It
is,
it
is
any
kind
of
wireless
excuse
me.
Any
location
of
wireless
service
and
in-home,
an
in-home
lack
of
wireless
service
can
qualify
and
does
qualify
as
a
significant
gap
in
service.
R
Again,
nearly
everyone
testified
about
whether
or
not
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
existed,
which
is
not
addressing
the
limited
question
before
the
board
tonight.
Whether
the
existing
c2
site
that
kenny
county
site
would
remedy
the
significant
gap
of
coverage.
I'm
going
to
let
shad
take
a
moment
and
and
explain.
R
Mr
mcgavin
testified
that
att's
own
expert
agreed
with
hank
allen's,
non-expert
drive
test,
but
failed
to
note
what
that
meant,
and
I'm
gonna
turn
it
back
to
shad
right
out
to
explain
that
that
mr
ellen
tested
in
the
wrong
areas
and
made
it
possible
and
actually
his
tests.
S
Okay,
thank
you
so
got
about
a
minute,
so
the
points
of
data
that
were
presented
in
this
chart
from
mr
allen.
First
of
all,
there's
three
data
points
presented
for
at
t.
One
is
missing
coordinates,
so
we
can't
evaluate
where
that
location
actually
is
now
the
other
two
locations
we
were
able
to
coordinate,
correlate
where
they
are
on
the
map,
using
the
coordinates
that
were
provided
location
number,
one
dark
green
area
where
we
have
good
coverage
and
allocation
number
two
does
show
up
in
the
light
green,
where
we
know
we
have
acceptable
coverage.
S
H
R
Thanks,
thank
you,
chad,
and
I'm
I'm
going
to
conclude.
The
last
thing
I'm
I'm
going
to
say
is
that
none
of
the
testimony
that
was
rate
that
was
brought
up
by
the
opponents
of
of
wireless,
proved
any
points
or
established
in
any
way
that
the
sba
site
that
that
c2
canyon
county
tower
would
work
the
only
testimony.
The
only
evidence
before
the
before
the
the
board
tonight
is
from
att's
expert
that
that
it
won't
work
and
I'd
I'd
stand
for
questions.
B
Yeah
I
have
a
question
you're
suggesting
that
in
building
coverage
is,
is
part
of
the
requirements
of
the
fcc.
Is
that
right.
B
All
right,
the
other
question
I
asked
it
to
mr
rydulch,
and
that
is:
did
you
act,
do
actual
on-site
testing
of
the
c1
tower.
E
Yeah,
mr
chair,
I
guess
I
want
to
focus
on
the
term
significant
gap,
and
I
guess
I
don't
know
if
we've
been
presented
with
a
lot
of
evidence
about
what
actually
constitutes
a
significant
gap
versus
just
a
gap,
and
so
you
know
based
on
the
appellant's
own
testimony,
it
did
show
that
there
was
some
benefit
to
using
the
c2
tower,
even
though
it
didn't
cover
everything
they
wanted.
So
I
guess
my
question
to
the
witness
is:
how
are
you
defining
significant
gap
versus
gap
and
what
standards
are
you
using
for
that.
R
If
you
want
to
go
to
another
question,
one
I'm
looking
this
up,
that'd,
be
we
maybe
get
through
these
a
little
quicker.
B
All
right
are
there
any
other
questions
before
we,
while
he's
doing
these
research.
AD
R
I'd
also
note
that,
along
those
lines,
customers-
obviously
don't
want
their
their
call
data
disclosed.
I
mean
it's
not
just
a
non-disclosure
that
would
have
to
be
signed.
It
would
have
to
be
something
more
significant
to
be
able
to
disclose
those
safely
and
legally.
B
Okay,
did
you
get
the
the
information
that
commissioner
davidson
asked
about?
Yeah.
R
I'm
I'm
streaming
it's
my
computer's
not
running.
E
So
counsel,
do
you
do
you
recognize
that
that
you
guys
have
the
bird
approved
to
to
prove
significant
gap?
Do
you
think
that's
the
standard.
R
Yeah
and
correct
and
mr
davidson
I'll
be
I'll,
be
counted
with
you
and
with
all
due
respect.
The
reason
why
I'm
not
prepared
to
to
address
the
significant
gap
in
coverage
is
that
it's
outside
the
scope
of
what
was
what
we
were
allowed
to
present
on
tonight.
The
significant
gap
was
based
on
the
the
way
that
the
board's
motion
granting
reconsideration
read.
E
R
And
and
most
of
the
the
the
definitions
in
in
in
case
law
of
significant
gap
are
are
not
based
on
whether
or
not
a
particular
carrier
has
coverage
they're
based
on
a
comparison
between
the
comparison
between
one
carrier
and
another
carrier's
coverage.
If
one
carrier
has
a
has
reliable
coverage
in
an
area
and
another
carrier,
doesn't
then
that's
a
significant
gap
in
coverage,
so
it's
more
of
a
relative
test
than
it
is
a
than
it
is
a
binary
test.
B
Oh
sir,
our
authorization
for
a
reconsideration
specifically
mentions
significant
gap.
R
Yeah
that
that's
and
that's
that's,
that
was
exactly
my
point
that
it's
just
not
it
if
the
question
is,
does
the
tower
the
the
proposal
or
the
existing
tower
remedy
the
significant
gap
in
coverage?
That's
been
established,
it
does
not,
and
if
we
pull
up
chad
do
you
have,
can
you
share
your
screen
and
pull
up
those
those
side
by
side,
rf,
propagation
maps.
B
You're
finished
with
your
rebuttal
time,
sir,
and
it's
not
answer
it
to
answer
a
direct
question.
Are
there
any
other
questions
of
the
applicant
before
we.
E
R
Yeah,
I
don't
know
that
there
was
any
finding
made
of
a
significant
gap
in
coverage.
I
just
was
reading
from
the
way
that
the
the
scope
was
limited
and
the
fact
that,
in
all
of
the
documents
that
were
or
excuse
me
in
all
the
pages
of
the
findings
of
fact,
conclusions
of
law,
the
only
thing
that
was
negative
to
the
applicant
was
that
we
didn't
discuss
this.
This
existing
canyon,
countertop
canyon,
county
tower.
R
B
B
E
Would
not
at
least
remedy
the
the
significant
gap,
at
least
reduce
it
to
a
gap
from
significant
gap?
Again
we
never
even
really
just
decided
at
the
previous
hearing
whether
or
not
a
significant
gap
existed,
but
I
the
burden
does
go
to
the
appellant,
and
I
don't
know
if
I've
seen
enough
to
convince
me
that
co-locating
at
c2
would
not
be
a
viable
option
for
them.
C
Yeah,
mr
chair,
I'm
kind
of
tracking
the
same
way
I
I
just
feel
like
they
haven't,
visited
the
area,
there's
no
on-site
testing
they're
only
using
the
generated
computer
analysis
without
being
able
to
see
any
customer
data.
That's
actually
that
there's
not
significant
coverage
that
the
c2
would
provide
or
not
provide.
I
and
again,
I
think
that
every
single
one
of
these
cell
phone
tower
hearings
that
we
seem
to
be
lacking
and
moving
forward.
This
board
has
decided
to
hire
a
neutral
expert
to
help
us
kind
of
wade
through
this.
C
E
Well,
mr
chair,
I
think
you
know,
based
on
the
evidence
we've
heard
tonight,
I
would
move
to.
I
guess,
uphold
the
appeal
and
deny
the
motion
for
reconsideration
in
case
number.
E
Two:
zero
two
one:
zero
three
zero
four
eight
dash
a
knowing
full
well
that
another
body
may
have
the
final
say
on
this,
but
and
I
do
wanna
say
moving
forward.
I
think
if
we
use
a
consultant
that
there'll
be
a
lot
more
clarity
to
these
hearings
in
in
the
future.
E
But
that
would
be
my
motion.
L
E
At
all,
add
that
to
the
motion
that
we'll
table
to
friday,
the
12th
for
revised
findings
of
fact,
conclusions,
conclusions
of
law.
C
B
Okay,
so
it's
been
moved
to
table
till
august,
the
12th,
which
is
friday
and
to
essentially
uphold
our
previous
decision,
correct,
correct.
C
I
No,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
can
you
know
I
believe
I
got
everything
we
got
the
applicant's
application
or
I'm
sorry.
The
applicant's
presentation
was
exhibit
14..
Mr
de
haas's
information
here
was
exhibit
13
and
then
mr
mcgavin's
presentation
was
exhibit
15..
So
I
I
will
need.
B
Just
clarifying,
but
thanks
for
keeping
track
of
us
therax
all
right,
you've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
aye
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Okay,
moving
on,
we
have
the
next
item.
Up
for
consideration
is
application:
two
zero
one:
nine
zero,
zero;
five
one:
zero
s,
t
e
hatch
design
architecture,
we'll
first
hear
from
our
our
staff,
after
which
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant.
O
S-T-E
they
are
requesting
the
board
level
time
extension
for
a
preliminary
plat
and
master
site
plan.
The
property
is
located
near
the
southwest
corner
of
lake
hazel
and
five
mile
road
it
does
contain
7.99
acres
and
is
within
the
neighborhood
commercial
districts
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
this
time
extension.
O
C
B
J
J
I
do
have
a
presentation
if
you,
if
you'd
like
me,
to
kind
of
recap
what
we've
done
over
the
last
two
years
with
the
staff's
recommendation
for
approval.
I
can
also
just
stand
for
for
questions
for
consideration.
J
The
two
two
main
reasons
would
be
kovit.
Obviously,
that's
been
problematic
for
a
lot
of
construction
and
coordination
with
achd.
J
B
This
is
just
for
time
extension.
I
did
open
the
public
hearing.
I
can
close
the
public
hearing
on
section
on
application:
two:
zero
one:
nine,
zero,
zero;
five
one,
two
s
t
e
the
the
question
is:
shall
we
grant
a
next
a
time
extension?
Is
there
a
motion.
C
Yes,
mr
chair
I'll,
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
to
grant
the
second
time
extension
on
two
zero
one:
nine,
zero,
zero
five
one:
two
dash
s
dash
t
e
hash
design;
architects,
based
on
finding
the
facts,
conclusions
along
the
testimony
that
we
heard
here
tonight.
B
Okay,
is
there
a
second
to
that
motion
I'll?
Second,
that
okay,
you've
heard
emotional
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
aye,.
AC
B
Thank
you.
Okay,
we
will
next
have
for
consideration
application,
202,
201,
331,
v,
dash
vac
brian
daigle.
Our
staff
will
give
us
report.
J
J
J
The
variance
is
needed
to
build
a
swimming
pool
within
the
15-foot
rare
yard
setback
in
order
to
grant
variance.
Three
findings
need
to
be
made
one.
The
variant,
schneider,
grant
writer
special
privilege-
that's
not
otherwise
allowed
in
the
base
district.
Two,
the
variance
releases,
undue
hardship
due
to
characteristics
of
the
site
and
three
of
the
variants
should
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public.
J
Health
safety
and
welfare
staff
finds
that
the
variance
does
not
constitute
granting
of
a
special
wire
privilege,
because
a
swimming
pool
isn't
allowed
use
in
the
r6
district
staff
also
finds
that
the
variance
releases,
undue
hardship
due
to
characteristics
of
the
site
resulting
from
the
placement
of
the
single
family
dwelling
on
the
property.
The
single
family
dwelling,
is
l-shaped
and
has
a
side
entry
garage.
J
The
applicant
wants
to
construct
a
16
foot
by
32
foot
pool
the
depth
of
the
backyard
is
only
24.01
feet
from
the
rear
wall
of
the
dwelling
to
the
rear
property
line.
Therefore,
there
is
only
9.01
feet
of
depth
in
the
backyard
that
the
pool
could
be
built
without
encroaching
to
the
15
foot,
rear
yard
setback.
J
But
there
have
not
been
any
comments
we
that
we've
received
for
neighboring
property
owners.
There
are
no
agency
objections
to
the
project
as
well
and
staff
funds
that
this
application
complies
with
the
county
code
and
recommends
approval
to
the
board
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
Any.
B
B
Okay,
does
the
applicant
wish
to
make
a
brief
presentation
go
ahead.
V
Thank
you
very
much
like
I
said
I
had
no
dissenting
opinions
from
any
of
my
neighbors
only
had
three
show
up
they're
all
for
approval
and
then
utility
companies
all
had
no
issues,
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
Okay,
thank.
B
You
thanks
all
right
there.
Anyone
else
would
like
to
testify
on
this
application.
Hearing,
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
on
application
number
two:
zero:
two:
two
zero
one,
three
three
one
v
dash
a
c.
What
karen
being
closed?
Is
there
a
motion
pending.
E
I'm
just
sharing
cases
like
this.
I
normally
like
to
hear
that
the
neighbors
don't
have
a
concern
with
it
and
not
hearing
any
I'd,
be
willing
to
move
to
approve
application.
Number
202,
201
331
dash
v
dash
vac
brian
daigle,
based
on
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
law
containing
the
staff
report.
The
testimony
heard
tonight.
B
And
boomers,
okay,
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two:
zero
one:
eight:
zero:
zero,
nine
zero,
two
msp
dash
t
e
jim
low
board
level
time
extension.
F
F
The
time
extension
is
needed
to
finish
the
second
phase
of
the
master
site
plan,
which
includes
building
the
event
center
structure
that
would
have
space
to
facilitate
harvest
and
marketing
of
products
and
gathering
of
guests
and
include
restroom
facilities.
The
6400
square
foot
structure
would
be
centrally
located
on
the
property.
F
The
applicant
has
three
reasons
for
the
time
extension
request,
which
include
current
turnaround.
Time
for
construction
planning,
availability
of
contractors
and
the
cost
to
build
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
time
extension
with
the
modification
of
condition
number
three
to
extend
the
approval
to
august
14,
2024
and
I'll
stand
for
any
question.
B
Okay,
any
other
questions:
yep,
okay,
the
applicant.
If
the
applicant
would
like
to
speak.
B
W
Ahead
hi,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
commission.
I
I
think
the
staff
report
I
pretty
well
captured
it
pretty
well.
This
was
in
our
plan
back
in
2018
when
we
I,
when
we
started
holding
the
farmstead
at
this
property
and
it's
just
taking
time
to
get
through
architects
and
and
whatnot,
but
we're
getting
pretty
close,
so
we're
excited
to
build
it
and
and
better
meet
the
needs
of
our
guest
to
the
farm.
I
take
any
questions
you
might
have.
W
E
Yeah
and
have
you
heard
from
any
neighbors,
I
guess
what's
the
closest
residences
to
you
and
where
is
the
parking
in
relation
to
the
residences
and
have
you
heard
any
complaints
from
neighbors
regarding
access,
trust.
C
W
W
B
W
Well,
so
we
I
we
set
out
in
earnest
to
design
the
building
in
2020
and
everything
just
went
haywire
and
so
but
yeah
so
we've
got
our
we've
got
our
plans.
You
know
appraisal,
set
of
plans
and
we're
to
that
point
at
this,
and
we've
got
a
a
potential
window
with
a
contractor
now
to
break
ground,
but
everybody's
just
been
so
backed
up,
they're
booked
out
a
year
and
a
half
to
get
anything
done
so.
AE
B
AE
Okay,
my
name's
tim
johnson,
I'm
a
neighbor
that
lives
in
close
proximity
to
are
you
speaking
to
the
microphone?
Okay?
My
name
is
tim
johnson.
I
live
in
cro,
close
proximity
and
I
would
like
to
just
testify
that
there's
been
what
I
would
consider
several
compliances
that
haven't
been
followed,
which
brings
me
to
a
reason
to
believe
why
the
extension
should
not
be
approved
until
they
can
start
meeting
compliances
that
were
under
exhibit
a.
AE
For
this
event,
we
have
cars
that
are
backed
up
in
several
directions
at
eagle
and
king
road
to
where
people
are
parked
on
the
road
you
can't
get
through
on
the
weekends
and
it's
my
understanding
that
one
of
the
conditions
was
that
no
parking
for
any
event
shall
be
allowed
in
the
public
right
of
way,
and
they
are
not
following
this
compliance
so
to
allow
them
to
go
and
have
extensions
to
increase
the
buildings
and
stuff
that
that
would
allow
more
guests
there.
AE
Secondly,
with
all
their
outdoor
activities,
it
mentions
that
in
exhibit
a
that
they're
supposed
to
be
closing
down
their
activities
at
9
30,
which
they
do
not
do,
that
they
always
close
down
at
10
o'clock,
and
so
by
allowing
more
activities
out
there.
It's
only
going
to
make
that
problem,
even
it's
going
to
increase
the
issue
out
there
as
far
as
noise
and
lights
and
stuff.
So
I'd
like
to
see
something
done
there,
so
if
we
move
to
the
next
slide
here.
C
Mr
chair,
just
I
just
want
to
clarify,
is
this
a
code
enforcement
issue?
When
do
you
put?
No,
I'm
not
asking
you
I'm
asking
for
staff.
Is
this
a
code
enforcement
issue
or
or
is
this
a
condition
of
approval
that
that
you're,
as
does
director
oversee.
L
D
AE
AE
So
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
I
just
would
like
to
see
a
disapproval
of
any
extensions
until
they
address
these
conditions
of
approval
first,
and
we
like
to
have
things
eliminated
for
at
least
two
years,
because
they
haven't
showed
good
faith
in
in
adhering
to
the
conditions
of
approval
for
this
site.
W
Well,
I'm
torn
between
addressing
the
questions
that
have
been
raised
and
getting
off
in
the
weeds,
but
you
know
for
I
guess,
for
the
sake
of
being
here
and
and
being
up
front,
I.
W
We
don't
permit
parking
on
the
road,
we
have
no
parking
signs
there,
we
don't
permit
it
any
more
than
any
of
the
other
neighbors
permit
it.
In
fact,
we
specifically
disallow
that
we,
I
occasionally
have
a
peak
day
we
had
one
last
year
and
those
were
the
photos
that
were
shown
and.
W
You
know
we
could
get
into
the
specifics
and
details
of
all
of
that,
but
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
particularly
relevant
here
and
and
I'd
be
happy
to
visit
with
with
mr
johnson.
Is
it
hi
about
those
specifics.
W
Yeah
hours
of
operation
at
from
our
initial
application
and
carried
throughout
I'd
have
to
get
back
to
see
where
he
was
looking
at
the
9
30,
but
was
until
10
pm
on
fridays
and
saturdays.
That
was
the
initial
application
that
was
approved.
W
C
Not
for
the
applicant
now,
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
C
So
I
have
a
question.
I
have
a
question
for
staff,
hopefully
not
legal,
but
it
may
be
legal.
So
so
if
this
was
first
approved
back
in
2018,
does
this
board
have
any
room
to
go
back
and
review
the
number
of
parking
spaces
required
in
the
hours
of
operation,
or
is
that
off
the
table
because
it
was
already
approved?
C
L
C
E
M
The
chairman
commissioners,
I'd
probably
recommend
you
could
table
for
additional
information
along
those
lines.
B
Well,
I
think
I
would
recommend
that
and
and
and
ask
the
staff
to
to
review
the
conditions
of
approval
and
to
work
with
both
parties
to
see
what
what
conditions
are
not
being
met.
And
and
if
there
are
a
plan
to
to
meet
the
conditions
of
approval.
L
Yeah,
mr
trump,
that
makes
sense
not
being
familiar
with
the
conditions
of
approval.
We
could
take
a
look
and
also
converse
with
with
the
applicant,
as
well
as
the
neighbor
who
testified,
but
the
code
does
indicate
that
the
board
in
granting
the
time
extension
may,
in
its
discretion,
amend,
delete
and
or
add
conditions
of
approval
development
requirements
as
necessary.
So
that
is
so
what's
a
good
table
time.
C
AF
To
that,
just
since
we've
had
another
season,
this
particular
peak
day
that
he
took
a
picture
of
was
as
a
result
of
a
rainy
weekend
and
week
and
then
a
beautiful
day
and
kind
of
brought
everyone
at
the
same
time
is
definitely
not
our
desire
to
have
anyone
park
outside
the
parking
lot
or
to
encourage
traffic
in
any
way,
and
so,
as
such,
we've
alleviated
that
by
adding
at
least
double
the
parking
spaces
that
we
had
previously.
So,
okay.
AF
B
B
L
D
M
B
L
B
At
least
that's
my
my
I
listen,
but.
E
So
we're
definitely
cognizant
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors,
and
I
think,
if
we
maybe
can
handle
this
now,
this
might
prevent
more
problems
down
the
line.
Because,
again,
this
is
just
a
time
extension.
All
these
issues
could
be
brought
up.
You
know
at
the
next
hearing,
so
I
think
if
we
can
deal
with
this
now,
that
might
save
both
parties
a
lot
of
headaches,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
to
table
application
number
two
zero.
Two
two
zero
one.
E
Jim
lowe
and
we're
moving
to
table
that
to
september
14th
for
staff
to
review
and
examine
whether
there's
compliance
with
the
original
conditions
of
approval
and
we'll
bring
that
to
the
well.
B
Okay,
you've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
aye
motion
carries
thank
you.
B
All
right,
we
will
now
take
up
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
application,
202.201470v.
F
F
The
variance
is
for
a
400
square
foot
barn
located
5
feet
into
the
10
foot
setback.
The
structure
was
built
by
the
current
owners
without
a
building
permit.
The
ada
county
code
requires
that
a
variance
relieves,
a
hardship
due
to
the
characteristics
of
the
site
in
this
case
there's
nothing
that
prohibits
the
structure
from
having
been
built
elsewhere
on
the
property.
F
A
variant
shall
also
not
grant
a
right
or
special
privilege
not
otherwise
allowed
in
the
base
district.
All
other
properties
within
the
surrounding
r1
zoning
are
required
to
receive
building
permits
and
meet
the
10-foot
side.
Setbacks
of
the
zone
staff
does
find
that
the
placement
is
not
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
self
safety
and
welfare.
C
Any
questions
mr
chair:
when
was
this
structure
erected,
and
how
did
it
get
discovered
that
it
was
within
the
setback.
F
Chairman
commissioners,
I
don't
have
the
exact
date
that
it
was
constructed
available.
However,
the
applicant,
the
current
property
owners,
are
the
ones
who
built
that,
so
they
can
provide
that
to
you,
and
I
don't
remember
the
reasoning
for
why
we
discovered
that
it
was
in
the
setback
most
likely.
They
requested
some
type
of
permit
from.
F
Chairman
commissioner,
davidson
the
the
letters
were
submitted
by
the
applicant,
so
they
had
received
those
letters
and
then
submitted
them.
So
I
don't
know
which
property
owners.
N
Good
evening,
thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
say
a
few
words
when
my
husband
built
our
barn
in
the
back
corner
of
the
property
in
2016.
N
He
contacted
the
individuals
who
would
be
most
affected
by
the
presence
of
a
fairly
large
red
structure.
These
individuals
are
julian,
jim
olsen,
who
owned
the
property
in
the
defense
line,
which
borders
that
side
of
the
barn
they
gave
their
consent
to
the
project
and
construction
began.
Since
that
time,
we
have
received
no
com,
no
complaints
from
the
neighbors
regarding
our
barn,
and
I
assume
that
if
complaints
were
filed
with
the
county,
they
would
have
surfaced
somewhere
during
the
application
process.
N
I
would
like
to
emphasize
that,
in
a
letter
to
the
ada
county
development
services
dated
may
31
of
this
year,
julianne
jim
olsen
asked
for
approval
of
the
variants.
In
my
mind,
they're
asking
to
be
released
from
the
protection
offered
by
this
board
to
keep
structures
from
being
built
too
close
to
properties
or
on
top
of
properties,
and
in
their
words
they
have
said
quote.
We
had
no
problem
with
its
location,
then
or
now
end
quote.
N
We
also
received
positive
comments
from
several
neighbors
and
their
support
of
leaving
the
barn
in
its
current
position,
which
were
submitted
with
the
original
application.
N
With
that
in
mind,
I
asked
for
reconsideration
of
the
application,
mostly
because
we
have
no
complaints
from
the
neighbors.
It's
been
well
received
by
the
neighborhood
and
new
neighbors
who
moved
in
have
said.
We
love
the
barn.
That
was
part
of
the
reason
we
bought
our
house.
We
do
recognize
that
it
should
have
been
permitted.
We
did
not
know
that
at
the
time
and
would
have
built
it
further
along.
N
In
regards
to
the
other
question
of
why
the
variance
was
even
or
why
it
even
came
into
light
is
yes,
we
have
pulled
a
permit
to
add
on
to
our
house
and,
as
they
were
looking
through,
aerial
views
came
up
upon
the
barn
and
said:
oh,
where
is
this
thing
in
the
back
corner
in
2016.?
That's
our
barn.
E
N
A
good
question:
it's
a
pole,
barn!
There
are
three
six
nine
poles
telephone
poles
that
were
dug
in
three
to
four
feet
in
the
ground.
The
way
to
move
it
would
probably
be
to
just
saw
off
the
poles
at
ground
level
and
then
figure
out
a
way
to
jack
it
up
and
scoot
it
over.
E
F
Chairman
krishner's,
I
did
look
at
the
structures
in
the
surrounding
properties
and
measure
them
with
the
gis
tools
that
we
do
have
available
in
that
structure.
Our
gis
lines
aren't
always
completely
correct.
Here
you
can
see
the
fence
lines
don't
always
match
up,
but
based
on
the
measurements
that
I
did
with
the
tools
we
have
available,
that
structure
does
meet
the
setbacks.
N
That's
a
good
question:
we
need
to
look
into
it.
We
would
need
to
hire
a
company
that
can
move
houses
and
find
ways
to
make
sure
so
the
barn
we
have
the
poles
and
then
the
frame
is
attached
to
those
telephone
poles.
It's
a
solid
structure
as
it
is
now.
If
we
cut
off
the
base
of
those
telephone
poles,
we
would
need
to
I'm
assuming
find
a
way
to
make
a
base.
N
There's
no
foundation,
it's
just
built
on
the
ground,
whereas
if
you're
moving
a
house,
you
have
your
wall,
your
floors
and
the
joists
underneath
that
somebody
could
come
in
and
potentially
pick
up
and
move
it,
we
would
need
to
create
a
floor
after
disconnecting
it
from
the
ground
level,
create
a
floor.
In
order
for
that
structure
to
be
moved
would
be
my
guess,
I
don't
know
the
cost.
We
have.
N
B
Okay,
well
I'll
close
the.
If
there's
no
other
discussion
or
questions
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
application,
two
zero:
two:
two:
zero
one:
four:
seven
zero
v.
Do
I
have
a
a
motion.
C
Yes,
mr
chair,
I'm
going
to
move
to
approve
two
zero,
two
two
zero
one,
four,
seven
zero
v
based
on
the
testimony
here
tonight
that
this
would
cause
an
undue
hardship.
It
would
probably
cost
more
to
move
it
than
it
would
within
the
barns
worth.
C
It
is
just
five
feet
within
the
ten
foot
step
back,
so
it's
not
significant
and
it
does
lie
in
a
portion
of
the
property
in
the
very
rare
that
does
not
cause
any
problems
with
neighbors
and
we
haven't
had
any
negative
testimony
here.
So
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
make
that
motion
to
approve
it.
Do
we
have
a.
E
L
We
need
to
table
this
one
yeah.
We
would.
Mr
chairman
christian,
we
would
ask
this
be
tabled.
We
recommend
august
23rd,
the
open
business
meeting.
C
Okay
and
I'll
make
the
motion
to
table
this
to
august
23rd
for
the
revised
findings,
in
fact,
in
our
open
business
meeting.
Thank
you.
B
You've
heard
the
motion
to
table
this
until
so,
we
can
write
revised
findings
fact
to
to
to
approve
the
because
of
an
undue
hardship
to
august
the
seventh
august
23rd.
Okay,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
aye
motion
carries
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Okay,
lo
and
behold,
one
more.
B
F
F
F
F
F
You
can
see
that
space
that
that
open
side.
B
Okay,
any
other
questions
of
our
staff
hearing.
None
is
the
applicant
wish
to
come
on
up
natasha.
AG
AG
The
only
additional
comment
that
I
have
is
that
we
have
spoken
with
all
of
the
surrounding
neighbors
and
have
received
no
opposition
and
actually
have
received
explicit
support
for
for
the
approval
of
this
request.
So
no
additional
testimony
other
than
that
and
we'll
stand
for
questions.
Are
there
any
boomers
in
your
neighborhood?
B
V
V
B
Thank
you
all
right.
I'm
gonna
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero,
two:
two:
zero
one:
four,
seven:
nine
v,
a
c
is
there
a
pending
motion.
E
You
know,
based
on
the
testimony
we've
heard
tonight
and
certainly
would
be
hard
to
rule
in
favor
one
bar
and
not
another,
in
a
nearly
identical
situation.
So
again,
thank
you
for
contacting
your
neighbors
to
make
sure
they
consent,
because
that
always,
I
think,
makes
life
easier
for
everybody
when
you
can
work
that
out
amongst
neighbors.
So
I
will
move
to
approve
application.
E
Number
two:
zero:
two:
two:
zero
one:
four:
seven:
nine
dash
v
dash
ac
based
on
the
findings,
the
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
contained
in
the
staff
report
and
the
testimony
heard
this
evening.
B
Okay,
you've
heard
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say
aye,
all
right,
hey
motion
carries:
do
we
have
any
further
business
in
front
of
the
commission
hearing
none
we're
in
we're
adjourned.
Thank
you.