►
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).
A
If
anyone
is
present
planning
on
presenting
testimony,
please
sign
in
the
sheet
in
the
back
of
the
hearing
room,
so
we'll
have
we'll
have
record
that
today.
B
A
D
F
Mr
chair,
I
move
that
we
remove
the
unfinished
business
from
the
table
for
consideration
I'll.
A
Okay,
you've
heard
the
motion.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
osha
carries
unfinished,
business
has
been
removed
from
the
table.
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
application2020021111spr.
E
Yes,
mr
chair
leon,
were
we
going
to
table
this
one
still
to
july
27th
chairman
medal?
Commissioner?
Yes,
okay,
I'll
make
that
motion
to
go
ahead
and
table
two
zero.
Two:
two:
zero
zero,
two
one,
one
s
p
pr
vac
to
july
27,
2022.
G
Hey
we're
now
officially
ready
it's
not
hearing
any
echoes.
Try
that
again.
Thank
you
chairman
commissioners.
The
item
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
of
a
100
foot
commercial
cell
tower.
The
appellant
is
louis
v
speicher
of
johnson
may
law.
G
Mr
brad
bentley
will
be
serving
as
appellant
representative
here
tonight
instead
and
that
was
confirmed
with
staff
via
an
email,
so
just
wanted
to
give
you
the
heads
up,
and
then
the
original
applicant
was
josh
leonard
of
clark,
ordle
llp,
so
the
subject
property
is
located
at
5410,
west
beacon,
light
road
and
contains
5.35
acres
in
the
rural
urban
transition.
District
surrounding
properties
are
zoned
rut
and
r2,
which
is
one
of
our
larger
lot
of
state
residential
zones
and
contain
single-family
homes.
On
larger
lots
in
close
proximity
are
some
newer,
smaller
lot.
G
This
visual
shows
existing
towers
in
the
nearby
vicinity,
including
one
to
be
removed,
approximately
two-thirds
of
a
mile
to
the
west.
It
is
the
removal
of
this
tower,
plus
existing
deficiency
deficiencies
in
the
area
that
the
applicant
aims
to
address,
with
the
proposed
tower.
G
G
The
second
chart
shows
what
will
occur
with
the
removal
of
that
facility
that
I
referenced
and
then
the
third
chart
will
show
what
shows
what
coverage
will
be
once
the
proposed
tower
is
reinstalled,
so
you
can
see
kind
of
the
changes
in
coverage
there.
Obviously
the
applicant
can
address
this
more
in
depth
during
their
presentation.
G
Regarding
the
appeal,
the
opponent
raises
the
following
four
points:
first,
granting
the
applicant
permission
to
construct
a
100
foot
tower.
The
proposed
location
violates
the
requirements
under
both
ada
county
code
and
the
conference
had
planned
on
the
legislative
intent
based
upon
which
those
requirements
were
enacted
by
the
town
appeal
point
number
two
section:
649
of
the
middle
class
tax
relief
and
job
creation
act
of
2012
would
allow
the
applicant
to
increase
the
height
of
the
cell
tower
without
further
or
prior
zoning
approval
point
number
three.
The
applicant
has
failed
to
prefer
getting
that
wrong.
G
Probative
evidence
sufficient
to
establish
a
need
for
the
proposed
tower
at
the
location
and
height
proposed,
or
that
the
grounding
of
this
application
would
be
consistent
with
the
smart
planning
requirements
of
the
zoning
code
and
then
finally,
number
four
to
comply
with
the
telecommunications
act
of
1996.
G
Regarding
point
number.
Two,
as
this
is
a
standard
outside
of
the
jurisdiction
of
beta
county
staff,
does
not
believe
it
provides
justification
for
the
board
to
deny
this
project
project.
Historically,
ada
county
has
required
new
conditional
use
permits
for
any
increases
in
the
height
of
existing
cell
towers.
G
Regarding
comments
from
various
agencies,
the
application
was
transmitted
to
community
and
regional
planner,
brent
moore,
which
is
part
of
development
services
identified
the
proposed
land
use
as
being
compliant
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
it
will
serve
existing
and
future
residential
uses
in
the
area.
G
G
G
G
80
county
engineer
is
going
to
require
final
inspection
marathon
pipeline,
which
impacts
the
property
has
stated
conditions
concerning
their
pipeline,
namely
to
stay
out
of
their
easement
as
well
similar
tonight,
new
dry,
creek,
ditch
company
and
then
finally
city
vehicle
recommended
denial.
The
project
but
stated
that
theta
county
approves
the
application.
They
would
prefer
the
tower
be
camouflaged,
so
that
would
be
something
to
be
effective.
Like
a
monopine
pine
tree
sort
of
options,
some
of
those
you've
seen
in
the
past
regarding
comments
from
the
public
in
general
impacts
to
the
visuals
of
the
area.
G
A
E
Could
you
elaborate
on
eagle
who
it
was
that
wanted
us
to
or
was
recommending
denial,
and
why.
G
Yeah
chairman,
madam
commissioner,
that's
the
planning
department
we
transmit
to
the
city
of
eagle
for
any
project
in
the
area
of
city
impact
and
as
with
past
applications,
they
have
recommended
denial
for
cell
towers
and
other
things,
and
it's
just
their
their
preference
that
we
not
approve
the
project
based
on
in.
E
E
E
I'm
sorry
but
we're
this
is
all
recorded
and
if
you
speak
in
the
back
and
it's
not
your
turn
and
you're
not
up
at
the
microphone,
we
can't
get
the
recording
straight,
and
so
we
please
don't
do
that.
Thank
you.
G
Oh
yeah,
chairman
that,
yes,
exactly
eagle
said
you
know
first
preferences
deny
second
is
if
you're
going
to
approve.
It
then
require
a
stealth
design
of
some
kind.
And
again
I
brought
up
the
monopole
monopine
as
a
potential
example,
but
I
think
there
are
other
ways
to
do
stealth
design
as
well,
and
certainly
a
good
question
for
the
applicant
during
their
okay.
E
G
Sure
sure,
mr
happy
to
happy
to
have
them
state
that
a
little
bit
more
okay.
Thank
you.
F
Chair,
yes,
can
you
address
other
elements
of
our
code,
such
as
the
co-location
requirement?
Is
that
attempted.
G
Yes,
chairman
matt
or
commissioner
yeah
as
a
part
of
the
packets
submitted
by
the
applicant,
they
attempted
to
co-locate
on
existing
towers
in
in
the
area.
They
did
also
provide
an
analysis
showing
any
tower
within
two
miles
would
be
unacceptable
for
them
to
co-locate.
On
and
again
I
I'd
defer
to
the
applicant
to
state
kind
of
their
reasoning
and
some
of
the
analysis
they
did
there.
But,
yes,
that
was
a
part
of
the
the
materials
submitted.
G
They
also
were
required
to
go
reach
out
to
public
land
owners,
and
so
that's
school
districts,
highway
districts
and
others
to
see
if
locating
on
their
property
might
be
an
option,
which
also
was
something
that
they
demonstrated
wasn't
possible.
But
again,
I
think
they
can
speak
to
that
analysis
and
effort
a
little
bit
more.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
staff,
not
at
this
time,
no
okay,
as
may
johnson
in
the
audience.
G
Yeah
and
chairman,
this
will
be
brad
bentley,
who
is
representing
for
the
appellate
group.
At
this
point,.
A
J
A
All
right,
you
have,
you
have
15
minutes
to
present.
J
All
right
pleasure,
thank
you
for
having
me
tonight
so
loud
yeah,
I'm
the
one
that
filed
the
the
the
appellate
complaint
I
am
my
name
is
brad
bentley.
I
live
on
4176,
west
morgan,
creek
court
in
eagle
and
I'm
building
a
home
just
adjacent
to
where
the
close
tower
is
tonight.
J
If
you
pull
up
the
presentation,
appreciate
it
first,
I
want
to
say
I
appreciate
and
respect
what
you
guys
have
to
do
day
in
and
day
out,
I
actually
spent
20
years
in
the
telecommunication
industry,
so
I
was
20
years
or
18
at
directv
and
three
years
at
att
as
a
senior
vice
president
or
executive
vice
president
reporting
and
ceo
responsible
for
fiber
build
out,
so
I
know
a
lot
about
the
importance
of
infrastructure.
J
J
I
can
show
you
places
where
coverage
really
is
needed.
This
is
not
one
of
them
sufficient
evidence
that
there's
alternative
sites.
If
there
was
a
gap
in
coverage
as
well
as
least
intrusive
means
and
then
lastly,
a
responsibility
to
protect
property
value
and
best
uses
of
property
within
the
aid
accounting,
so
let
me
get
into
the
next
slide.
J
Prior
prior
rulings
in
state
of
idaho
acquired
this
two-step.
You
guys
are
really
familiar
with
this,
which
is
gap
coverage
which
I'm
going
to
start,
and
then
I
want
to
get
into
the
next,
which
is
to
prove
that
there
are
no
alternative
sites
next
slide.
Please,
of
course
I
was
a
lot
of
time
in
marketing.
So
as
marketers
we
put
together
maps
like
this.
J
So
if
you
go
to
the
att
website
and
say,
there's
plenty
of
coverage,
you
can
see
it's
all
blue,
not
just
4g,
but
5g
go
the
next
slide
same
with
verizon,
it's
great,
it's
strong!
In
fact,
in
my
47
years,
I've
never
had
better
cell
coverage,
although
really
the
only
relevant
would
be
the
last
20
in
which
we've
had
coverage
in
the
last
slide.
T-Mobile
is
the
same
right.
So
all
carriers
have
a
really
strong
coverage,
but
these
are
maps.
Maps
can
be
altered.
Maps
can
be.
J
You
know,
as
marketers
manipulated
what
what
you
really
need
in
terms
of
significant
data
is
one
of
two:
what
we
call
hard
data,
which
is
drive,
data
or
drop
call
data,
so
the
next
slide
is
actual
drive
data.
This
is
the
data
for
all
three
carriers.
At
the
exact
side
of
the
cell
tower
now
drive
data.
You
need
to
do
a
whole
bunch
of
points.
I'm
just
showing
you
with
one
point
for
illustration,
but
anything
under
negative
85
decibels
is
a
strong
signal
and
you
have
a
great
signal
at
this
location
across
all
three
carriers.
J
This
is
what
I
would
call
hard
data
and
as
commissioners,
what
I
would
be
expecting
to
see
from
carriers
coming
in
saying
that
they
need
to
use
a
gap
of
coverage
when
you
start
getting
beyond
you
know:
minus
100,
minus
110,
you
start
dropping
calls.
The
second
form
of
hard
data
would
be
actual
drop
call
data
which
you
can
get
directly
from
an
att
verizon.
In
this
case,
it's
got
great
cell
coverage,
so
the
question
is:
why
are
we
here?
Let's
go
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
the
what
we
call
propagation
maps.
J
J
This
is
what
they
provided
back
on
march
10th
during
the
hearing.
Unfortunately,
I
was
not
able
to
attend.
I
was
on
business
travel,
so
I
couldn't
make
my
defense
what
they're
saying
is
they're
losing
a
tower
of
verizon
tower,
there's
a
silo,
that's
on
beacon,
light
that
is
being
terminated
that
just
has
verizon
on
it,
and
if
that
silo
goes
away,
they're
going
to
have
a
significant
gap
of
coverage,
people
are
going
to
be
losing
their
calls.
Well.
J
The
next
slide
is
is
the
propagation
map
that
they've
submitted,
where
you
lose
the
tower,
as
you'll
notice,
there's
still
coverage
in
vehicle
and
at
home
or
in
vehicle
and
on
street
they've
lost
a
little
bit
of
in-home
coverage
well
in
in-home
coverage.
We
actually
want
that
to
be
covered
by
wi-fi,
not
necessarily
cellular,
yeah
someone,
because
it's
expensive
to
get
coverage
in
home
via
wi-fi
via
cellular.
You
want
it
through
wi-fi
through
fiber
and
we
have
fiber
optics
in
this
area,
and
so
this
does
not
represent
a
significant
gap
of
coverage.
J
The
next
slide
is
what
they're
showing
of
well,
if
we
add
the
tower
at
this
football
site,
we
can
add
the
green.
What
I,
what
I've
circled
in
blue,
so
the
two
pieces
I've
altered
is
the
blue
circle.
You
can
tell
it
looks
like
a
kindergartner
did
it
and
what
I'm
showing
in
red
is
actually
where
they're
losing
coverage
right.
So
this
is
not
an
ideal
location
if
they're
trying
to
mimic
what
they
might
be
losing
verizon,
but
regardless
there
is
no
significant
gap
of
coverage,
and
so
I
want
to
prove
two
things
here.
J
Is
you
have
good
coverage
and
they
all
the
site
that
they're
proposing
does
not
come
close
to
even
giving
what
what
they
had
if
they
were
trying
to
solve
for
it?
The
next
slide.
J
I
just
wanted
to
play
a
video
here
from
the
the
march
10th
hearing.
If
you
can
play
video
number
eight,
please.
G
D
L
Is
so
it
I
think
the
verizon
engineer's
probably
going
to
end
up
doing
a
little
bit
with
sectors,
maybe
having
one
sector
a
little
bit
more
south
and
then
having
two
two
more
east
and
west
on
the
north
side.
So
he
may
have
an
azimuth
of.
L
Where
nobody
lives-
and
that
was
the
that
was
the
hard
thing
that
when
my
compatriot
showed
you
all
of
the
locations
that
the
landowners
we
talked,
it
was
farther
to
the
west
right.
So
we
were
trying
to
duplicate
the
coverage
from
the
existing
site
as
much
as
possible.
Well,
no
landowners
were
interested
farther
to
the
west
that
still
had
close
enough
to
provide
service
down
into
where
all
the
construction
is
being
built.
So
0.63
miles,
it
doesn't
sound
like
a
lot.
B
And
it's
better
to
have
something
than
to
have
none
it's
better,
to
have
something
than
to
have
none,
it's
better
to
have
something
than
to
have
none.
J
Obviously
I
slowed
down
the
last
sentence,
so
we
could
capture
it,
but
it's
not
the
way.
We
want
to
be
planning
it's
better
to
have
something
than
nothing
with
almost
a
nervous
chuckle
and
the
reason
behind
it
is
because
we
don't
need
coverage
further
to
the
east.
We
have
plenty
of
coverage.
All
the
development
happening
is
closer
to
16.
and
they're,
pushing
the
cell
tower
6.3
miles
further
east
and
only
gaining
in-home
coverage.
Mind
you
because
there's
in-vehicle
coverage
and
there's
a
foot
coverage
in
the
north
where
there's
absolutely
no
homes.
J
I
know
that
because
that's
why
I'm
building
mine,
but
on
a
10
acre
parcel
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
have
livestock
and
other
things,
and
so
the
question
I
have
to
ask
is
well
why
and
we'll
get
into
that
a
bit.
I
think
video
number
seven
if
we
can
play
that
really
quick
from
commissioner
roush.
J
J
I
won't,
I
won't
I'll
spare
you
the
dramatic
positivity
saying
three
times,
but
he
said
it
once.
I
do
have
raw
reservations
about
what
is
the
real
necessity
of
this
application
and
then
the
last
video
what
I
wanna
why
I
wanna
play
this
is
because
it's
important
you
have
smart
planning
so
that
you
don't
have
to
put
up
multiple
towers,
see
we
don't
have
aligned
interest
necessarily
with
a
company
like
intermax,
where
they
get
paid
for
the
more
towers.
They
have
the
more
revenue
they
make.
J
K
The
location
to
be
nice
if
it
was
further
west
because
they'd
get
some
coverage
out
there.
I
guess
I
was
concerned
that
if
there
can
be
adjustments
made
so
that
it
actually
does
provide
coverage
to
the
west,
that
would
be
nice
because
otherwise
we're
looking
at
another
tower,
maybe
further
west
out
by
16,
which
would
be
redundant.
It
seems.
J
So
be
redundant,
you
know
we
then
put
up
another
tower
and
you
see
there's
a
lot
of
development
happening
out
on
16
and
they
will
need
coverage
eventually,
but
even
then
there's
still
coverage
in
that
area
as
it
stands
now.
So
that's
my
first
part
in
terms
of
there's
no
significant
gap
in
coverage.
J
The
next
part
is
so
why?
Why
exactly
are
we
having
this
conversation,
then
I
found
it
interesting
that
their
side
objectives
was
not
the
concern
about
verizon's
losing
their
tower,
which,
even
if
they
lost
the
tower,
showed
you
their
own
math
that
there
was
no
lack
of
coverage,
but
the
primary
objective
of
the
site
is
for
intermax
is
adding
a
wireless
isp
antenna
to
the
proposed
tower
so
they're,
adding
a
broadband
antenna
which
is
not
even
within
the
juris
section
of
the
fcc,
and
that
verizon
is
the
second
tenant.
J
So
I'm
trying
to
understand:
why
are
we
adding
an
antenna?
That's
got
to
have
four
carriers
in
this
place
where
the
three
all
three
carriers
have
service
already,
and
so
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this.
I
didn't
ask
the
question
of
the
applicant,
but
I
think
it's
worth
you
guys
asking.
The
question
is:
why
are
we
really
here?
Is
this
about
a
replacement
of
a
tower,
or
is
this
about
a
new
business?
J
J
The
last
piece
I
wanted
to
share
is
you
know
to
the
right:
is
the
silo
as
it
exists
today
you
can
see
how
small
it
is.
It's
disguised.
You
hardly
notice
that
it's
there,
even
as
neighbors
we're
open
to
that.
If
we
really
felt
like
we
needed
it,
but
we're
trying
to
replace
the
robo
with
a
battleship,
I
mean
this
thing
is
over
a
hundred
feet
tall
with
the
option
to
go
to
120
with
and
they'll
say
we
need
all
four
carriers.
J
Well,
all
four
carriers,
all
the
carriers
don't
need
service
here
and
you'll
see
that
they've
earmarked
intermax
as
one
of
the
antennas.
That
is
part
of
this
project.
J
The
other
thing
I'll
note
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
tower
has
to
be
so
high
is
the
location
they've
picked
which,
on
the
record,
they
said,
is
not
ideal
because
it's
too
far
west
and
not
ideal,
because
the
topography
is
about
20
feet
lower
than
where
the
current
tower
sits
on
that
silo,
which
is
requiring
the
antenna
to
be
that
high.
Now
they
would
say
well,
there
was
no
alternative
sites,
but
their
process
for
alternative
sites
is
just
to
send
out
letters
and
if
no
one
gets
back
to
them.
J
Well,
then,
there
must
not
be
alternative
sites.
Well,
the
telecommunication
act
requires
that
they
actually
provide
written
evidence
of
denial
with
significant
proof
and
so
which
I've
not
seen
as
to
where
they
could
collate
in
terms
of
other
sites.
This
is
not
the
right
site.
You've
heard
it
from
the
other
commissioners.
It's
farther
west,
it's
lower
topography.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide
in
terms
of
significant
proof.
J
Sorry
one
more
though,
but
the
bureau
land
management's
an
option
we
asked
if
they
sent
a
letter,
they
said
we've
sent
a
letter
we
didn't
hear
back.
Would
I
spend
some
time
on
the
website
and
it's
actually
not
send
us
a
letter,
there's
an
application
process
with
the
pre-application
meeting,
then
you
submit
an
application
of
the
bureau
of
land
management,
which
would
be
a
better,
a
better
location
for
multiple
reasons.
J
If
you
did
have
a
gap
in
coverage,
the
tower
can
sit
up
a
bit
higher,
so
it
doesn't
be
as
tall
and
you
have
the
backdrops
of
the
foothills.
So
it's
not
as
much
of
an
eyesore
as
it
is.
When
you
stick
it
in
the
front
of
residential
houses,
they
did
not
file
that
application.
J
To
my
knowledge
from
what
I
asked
your
clerk,
maybe
that's
changed
since,
but
they
have
not
done
diligence
in
terms
of
alternative
site,
even
if
they
needed
coverage
which
we've
established
that
they
don't
next
slide
just
want
to
give
you
a
perspective
of
how
far
blm
land
is.
The
existing
site
is
right
at
the
tip
of
that
arrow.
The
applicant
proposed
site.
Is
this
0.63
miles
to
the
west
that
you've
heard
the
rf
engineer
who's
in
the
room?
Talk
about
as
well
as
the
commissioner
saying.
We
don't
need
it
further
west.
J
We
actually
need
it
to
the
east.
We
need
it
to
the
west
that
distance
from
the
blm
land
to
the
existing
site
is
1.3
miles
and
is
just
less
than
a
thousand
feet
difference
than
where
they're
proposing
the
current
site.
So
it's
not
a
matter
of
distance
from
the
existing
site.
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
what
was
easiest
to
accomplish
and
perhaps
an
alternative
motive
around
their
own
service.
J
Next
slide.
I
think
that's
all
I
want
to
share
for
now.
So
I'll
give
back
a
minute
and
a
half
any
questions
for
me
before
one
of
the
neighbors
comes
up.
E
E
E
G
Yeah
chairman,
commissioner,
mr
bentley's,
right
you
know
we
received
a
certified
a
copy
of
a
certified
mailing
to
blm
as
to
the
pre-op
process
and
other
things
like
that.
We
don't
have
documentation
of
that,
but
certainly
a
good
question
for
the
applicant
and
if
that
is
indeed
the
the
way
to
demonstrate
that
they
were
effectively
denied
on
blm
property,
we
can
do
that
moving
forward.
We
yeah
we
don't
have
a
copy
of
a
pre-app
with
blm.
E
Do
we
know,
is
it
1992
the
telecommunications
act.
G
E
It's
old,
do
we
know
in
the
telecommunications
act
if
it
specifies
that
they
do
a
pre-application,
or
does
it
just
be
to
notify?
Do
we
know
the
language.
G
Chairman,
commissioner,
I
would
have
to
research
that
to
get
back
to
you,
I
don't
know
if
it
says
a
pre-app
is
sufficient.
Our
ordinance
says
contacts
contact
right
these
folks.
It
doesn't
say
to
what
level
of
contact
I
mean.
Obviously
we
would
want
someone
to
pursue
that
to
the
upmost
of
their
ability,
but
yeah
ours
simply
states
contact
exactly
what.
J
We
need
to
verify
the
specific
words
of
telecommunication
act
is
the
decision
must
be
based
upon
relevant
evidence
as
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
and
support
conclusion.
It
needs
to
be
substantial
evidence,
which
means
more
than
a
chantilly
and
less
than
a
preponderance
yeah,
which
is
from
the,
but
but
you
have
to
show
proof-
and
you
know
to
be
honest.
J
A
month
ago
you
guys
had
another
hearing
about
star,
and
this
topic
came
up.
We
sent
out
letters
and
the
applicant
lawyer
josh
said
actually
no
one
really
ever
responds
and
admitted
it's
not
a
great
process,
and
he
even
joked.
If
you
need
help
in
rewriting
the
code,
I
can
help
her
write.
The
code
for
you,
which
I
found
interesting
recently
and
another
will
testify.
J
That's
right
at
the
base
of
the
cell
tower
proposed
cell
tower.
F
How
did
you
I
mean?
Did
you
conduct
the
measurements
we.
J
Did
it
ourselves
hank
who's
here,
there's
a
device
you
can
buy
that
it's
quite
easy
actually
to
to
get
these
readings,
and
so
it's
right
on
the
the
hood
of
his
truck
right
on
beacon
light
next
to
where
the
proposed
cell
tower
is.
F
J
Street
level,
this
is
tree
level.
This
is
decibel
milliwatts,
which
is
the
reading
to
to
measure
signal
strength.
J
J
J
J
Don't
know
it
is,
for
instance,
I
haven't
run
it
across
all
the
places,
because
that's
really
the
applicant's
responsibility,
but
it,
but
it
is
available.
So
I
just
want
to
give
example
that
even
a
live
civilian
can
can
grab
real
data
with
real
numbers
versus
the
pictures
that
can
be
manipulated.
Why
the
fcc
is
requesting
that
people,
through
their
order,
now
get
real
drive
time
data
and.
E
Then
your
final
question:
do
you
know
who
intermecs
is.
J
Well,
intermax,
I
know
from
the
application
there's
inamax
towers
their
tower
company
that
leases
space
to
other
providers
and
when
I
was
at
http
there's
many
other
kind
of
tower
companies
out
there.
The
question
was
who's
intermax
networks,
which
is
the
one
doing
an
isp
internet.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
I
think
it's
a
sister
company
you
can
ask
yeah.
G
G
A
I
Name
is
josh
leonard
with
clark
world
original
applicant
310
front
right
across
the
street
here,
really
quickly,
I'd
like
to
buzz
through
a
couple
of
questions
that
were
asked
the
first,
the
reason
for
eagles
denial
or
for
the
recommendation
of
denial.
The
reason
why
eagle
denied
it
is
because
they
based
their
review
on
eagle
city
code
because
they,
but
this
isn't
in
eagle
city,
that's
just
their
process.
They
review
it
and
they're
actually
correct
under
eagle
city
code.
You
it
would
get
denied,
do.
I
Because
it's
not
it's
an
eagle,
as
was
said
from
the
gallery
earlier,
there's
not
a
within
eagle
city,
there's,
not
a
residential
zone
in
which
a
tower
can
be
built
this,
but
this
isn't
in
eagle
city.
This
is
in
unincorporated
sure
and
and
pursuant
to
the
the
the
area
of
city
impact
agreement,
it's
ada
county
code
that
is
required
there
go
ahead
and,
let's
start
clicking
through
just
quick
overview.
Next
back
to
the
glance
you've
probably
seen
this.
This
is
just
a
summary
of
our
application.
I
I've
note
both
verizon
and
intermax,
are
technically
anchor
tenants
in
that
they
would
go
up
on
the
tower
immediately,
there's
not
a
confusion
about
one
or
the
other
being
that
the
anchor
tenant
they're
both
next
site,
just
a
picture
next
picture
of
what
it
looks
like
with
an
overlay.
The
site
plan
complies
with
all
setbacks.
I
We
did
some
photo
sims.
This
is
one
of
the
two
photo
sims.
You
can
see
the
100
foot
tower
with
a
four
or
five
foot,
lightning
rod
on
it.
The
the
poles
that
you
see
the
taller
of
the
poles
are
between
72
and
76
feet,
tall
depending
on
topography
through
that
area,
so
we're
about
25
ish
feet
taller
than
the
existing
power
poles
in
that
area.
Let's,
let's
do
next,
it's
another
angle
of
it.
This
is,
I
believe,
looking
south
from
north
of
the
property
towards
beacon
light
road.
I
You
can
see
the
tower
there
in
the
distance
next
reasons
why
why
we're
here?
Intermax
has
no
presence
in
this
area
in
terms
of
in
in
this
immediate
area,
in
terms
of
its
coverage,
there
are
no
existing
towers
that
would
afford
intermax
the
ability
to
to
to
provide
service
to
to
its
subscribers
in
this
area,
but
the
the
bigger
reason
and
the
one
that
gets
discussed
the
most
is
verizon
after
the
silo
site
goes
offline.
Unless
this
proposed
site
is
approved
to
replace
it,
there
is
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
here.
I
The
remaining
towers
can't
provide
the
coverage
and
signal
strength
necessary
to
fill
that
next
slide
proposed
site.
You
can
see
the
silo
site
there
and
then
the
where
I
propose
sites
approximately
3,
33
feet,
I'd,
say
approximately,
and
then
I
give
you
an
almost
exact
number,
but
that's
what
we
figured
out
by
the
the
gis
of
the
county.
Next,
one
thing
that
that
came
up
at
the
last
one
was
the
timing
of
when
that
verizon
the
existing
verizon
site's
going
to
go
away.
I
The
variety
I
spoke
with
verizon's
representative,
as
well
as
with
the
representative
of
the
landowner,
the
the
lease
has
expired
they're
on
a
month-to-month
holdover
tendency.
The
property
owner
is
unwilling
to
renew
the
lease.
He
wants
some
flexibility
with
when
he
starts
to
develop
that
project
and
verizon
needs
to
secure
another
site
asap
the
the
landowner
could
give
as
little
as
30
days
notice
and
require
verizon
site
to
be
off
there.
One
of
the
reasons
that
the
landowner
hasn't
done.
That
yet
is
he's
he's.
I
He
wants
to
see
this
area
get
a
new
tower
because
it
would.
This
is
the
only
tower
that's
providing
coverage
right
in
this
spot
and
he
doesn't
want
that
to
to
go
away
for
verizon
east
of
the
the
tower
site,
so
he's
allowed
them
to
continue
to
stay
up
there,
while
this
application
is
pending
a
recommended
condition
of
approval
just
so
that
you
can
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire
and
not
and
not
take
my
word
for
it.
I
Verizon's
objectives,
replace
capacity,
replace
coverage,
and,
and
why
is
it
important
the
key
here
the
opponent's
talked
about
using
wi-fi
and
that's
great
when,
when
wi-fi
is
down,
the
wi-fi
is
down
and
96
of
americans
own
a
cell
phone.
I
Nationally,
57
percent
of
americans
rely
on
a
cell
phone
for
their
their
primary
contact
out
of
their
house
for
telephone
service.
That's
actually
higher
in
idaho,
it's
it's
more
than
57
and
then,
as
you
can
see,
84
of
911
calls
come
from
a
wireless
device.
Next
slide.
I
The
opponent's
memo
stated
that
the
silo
is
only
50
feet.
High,
it's
actually
60
feet,
4
inches
tall,
much
of
the
height
of
our
proposed
tower
is
because
of
the
co-location
requirement.
It's
because
we
have
to
have
spaces
for
for
two
additional
carriers:
minimum
spacing
the
absolute
carriers
prefer
12
to
15
feet
of
spacing.
I
L
Commissioners,
stephen
kennedy:
can
we
go
next
slide
please?
So
this
is
current
coverage:
inbuilding
neg85,
dbm,
in-vehicle
neg,
95,
dbm,
on-street,
neg
106..
These
are
pretty
standard
levels
for
showing
the
service,
and
this
is
an
rsrp
plot.
L
Please,
if
we
look
if
that
site
goes
away,
there
is
a
significant
gap
in
service
because
we're
going
to
lower
the
quality
of
the
service
in
the
area,
it's
going
to
be
a
gap
and
once
again
my
drive
test
and
throughput
data
will
show
you
that,
with
the
proposed
replacement
site.
One
thing
to
note:
I
changed
the
antenna
system.
I
worked
with
the
verizon
engineer
and
we
made
some
adjustments
to
make
that
site
to
the
east,
cover
farther
to
the
west
and
match
up
the
coverage
very
closely
with
the
existing
site.
L
So
because
of
adding
a
third
sector
and
changing
up
some
antenna
designs,
we've
got
a
pretty
close
to
a
match.
You
can
go
back
and
look
at
the
slot.
The
plot
on
the
right
and
the
one
on
the
previous
page
next
slide,
0.63
miles
apart.
The
next
closest
site,
only
other
site
within
two
miles
is
an
existing
verizon
site
at
eagle,
high
school.
L
So
opposition
brought
up
that
there
could
be
other
towers
to
go
on
verizon's
already
there,
so
taking
a
tower
away
and
or
adding
more
antennas
to
the
same
side
at
eagle,
high
school
is
really
not
going
to
fix
the
problem.
They're
already
there
and
I'll
show
you
a
drive
date
of
what
what
saw
next
slide
existing
sites.
I
think
you
saw
this
before
so
the
existing
silo
and
then
all
the
all
of
the
neighbor
towers
that
are
around
it
next
slide.
This
is
the
service
provided
by
the
verizon
site
on
the
eagle
high
school.
E
L
Let
me
go
back
to
the
page.
If
you
go
back
two
more
so
the
one
to
the
high
school
was
1.77
miles,
he
gave
it
to
you
in
feet.
I
just
have
to
do
a
real,
quick
conversion.
L
L
So
they're
all
to
at
least
you
know,
1.5
or
above
or
1.3
and
above
okay.
Next
slide,
I
went
and
did
a
drive
test
performed
on
june
22nd,
just
like
opposition
did.
They
took
a
reading.
They
took
a
reading
at
the
from
what
he
said
was
at
the
base
of
where
the
proposed
site
would
be.
I
went
a
little
further
than
that,
so
I
did
a
few
more.
So
I
looked
at
rsrp
and
rsrq
broadband
digital
networks.
L
You
have
to
look
at
those
two
readings
to
get
an
understanding
of
what
how
a
broadband
data
network's
going
to
work
then
I
also
did
speed
tests.
I
looked
at
latency
and
throughput
from
a
verizon
phone
and
a
t-mobile
phone
at
these
locations,
so
coverage
and
quality
on
broadband
based
on
rsrp
and
rx
or
q
instead
of
just
rssi
rssi,
receive
signal.
L
So,
like
I
said,
I
did
just
a
few
more
spots
than
that
one
spot.
So
if
you
look
at
the
plot,
I've
taken
a
quarter
mile,
half
mile
three-quarter
mile
concentric
rings
around
the
existing
site,
and
I
went
out
and
I
took
readings
at
all
the
locations
you
see
pins
at
so
that's
the
data
I
went,
I
went
and
I
went
around.
L
I
looked
at
it,
it's
a
bullseye,
let's
see
what's
going
on
so
instead
of
one
data
point,
I
gave
you
quite
a
few
more
next
slide,
like
opposition
sets
scanner
data
drive
test
data
is,
is
fact
so
here
we
go
so
this
is
existing.
Remember
verizon
has
an
existing
site.
That
site
goes
down,
there's
going
to
be
a
negative
impact,
I'm
going
to
show
you
that
in
a
in
a
way,
but
so
we
look
at
rsrp
excellence,
greater
negative
five
goods
85
to
95,
fares,
95
to
neg,
106.,
106
and
beyond,
is
poor.
L
L
If
we
look
at
rsrq,
not
quite
as
good,
it's
a
little
shorter
site,
it's
about
60
foot,
so
it's
not
going
to
be
quite
as
well
in
the
rsrp
we're
starting
to
get
out
to
sell
edge
for
a
lot
of
the
users
in
this
area,
so
we're
going
to
see
a
lower
rsrq
level.
If
you
look
and
kind
of
see
the
rssi,
I
went
ahead
and
plotted
it
next
to
it.
Rssi
we're
seeing
you
know,
20
to
25
dbm
difference
between
what
the
rssi
is
stated
and
what
the
rsrp
is
once
again.
L
This
is
t-mobile
so
t-mobile's
not
on
on
the
the
silo
t-mobile's,
not
on
big
eagle,
high
school
t-mobile's
on
the
other
sites
that
surround
now.
Let's
look
at
t-mobile,
so
opposition
stated:
oh
t-mobile
has
great
service.
18T
has
great
service,
look
at
their
maps
on
the
website,
not
quite
so.
Well
so
t-mobile.
L
We
show
a
lot
more
and
fair
and
a
lot
more
and
poor
on
our
srp
on
our
rsrq.
We
pretty
consistently
show
poor
and
then
so
if
we
were
to
extrapolate
a
little
bit.
If
you
go
to
the
previous
slide,
there's
the
verizon
site,
the
silo
right
now
great.
If
that
silo
goes
away
or
when
that
silo
goes
away,
and
we
lose
that,
let's
flip
to
the
next
slide,
that's
what
we're
going
to
see
not
exactly
it's
just
I'm
extrapolating
a
little
bit!
L
L
This
is
the
17
data
points
I
took
on
that
map
and
it
shows
a
whole
lot
worse
for
t-mobile
all
right
next
slide
all
right,
so
I
did
a
throughput
test,
throughput
and
latency.
So
I
I
went
in
I
I
added
or
had
speedtest.net
app
on
my
verizon
phone
and
my
t-mobile
phone
verizon.
As
is
with
the
existing
site
on
air,
getting
pretty
good
stuff,
they're
they're
meeting
exceeding
4g
lte
network
on
device
they're
getting
up
into
the
5g
levels
and
download
and
upload
speeds,
so
pretty
good
right,
it's
a
site!
L
The
existing
site
covers
there.
It
does
a
great
job.
Let's
go
the
next
slide,
there's
t-mobile's
drive
test,
so
that's
the
throughput
and
that's
the
latency.
You
notice
a
big
difference,
t-mobile's
not
doing
as
good
a
job
in
the
area
because
the
sites
are
farther
away.
So
if
we
take
away
the
verizon
site-
and
we
don't
allow
the
proposed
site
to
be
built,
we're
going
to
be
seeing
some
significantly
worse,
quality
and
coverage
and
throughput
for
that
area
so
to
the
next
slide.
L
L
T-Mobile
and
18
t
are,
on
the
other
various
towers
around
the
area,
except
for
I
believe
neither
one
of
them
have
anything
at
eagle.
High
school
well,
rssi
is
important
reading.
It
is
it's
something
we've
used
for
years.
I've
been
doing
this
for
a
long
time,
read
rssi
for
a
long
time,
but
once
we
move
to
digital
networks,
rsrp
on
rsrq
is
how
we
look
at
things.
So
if
this
site
is
not
allowed
to
be
built
and
when
that
other
site
goes
away,
there
will
be
a
significant
gap
in
service.
F
I
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Members
of
the
commission
not
very
far,
and
the
reason
is
it
didn't
work
for
the
the
radio
frequency.
The
only
reason
we
reached
out
to
blm
was
because
it's
required
in
ada
county
code
to
be
included
in
a
complete
application.
I
The
the
application
process
that
they
described-
that's
not
required
anywhere
not
by
the
telecom
act.
The
only
thing
that
requires
us
to
reach
out
to
government
governmental
entities
that
control
land
that
we
could
put
a
tower
on
is
ada
county
code
and
the
the
the
appellant
found
it
kind
of
funny
that
I
offered
to
to
help
you
with
your
code.
I'm
I'm
I'm
helping
to
tell
you
how
the
industry
works
us
mailing,
a
letter
to
blm
just
which
is
what
what's
required
by
code.
Just
isn't
how
we
do
that
it
is
an
application.
D
A
Okay,
we'll
now
have
anyone
that
wants
to
testify
I'll.
Give
you
three
minutes.
One
minute
wrap
up.
We
have
a
number
of
people
signed
up
I'll,
just
take
the
list,
the
list
that
was
from
online
first
are
there
a
couple
that
want
to
testify
on
webex.
A
One
on
the
telephone,
no
no
one's
on
telephone
either.
Okay,
we
have
steven
kennedy.
A
A
O
Okay,
my
name
is
vivian
lockery
2211,
north
19th
street
boise,
idaho
I've
been
a
resident
of
ada
county
for
28
years.
The
non-circuit
court
holds
the
proposed
tower.
Site
must
be
least
intrusive,
so
if
building
a
tower
at
the
applicant's
proposed
site
will
later
require
an
extra
tower
to
be
built
closer
to
highway
16
that
would
otherwise
otherwise
not
be
necessary.
O
O
Next
slide,
please
so
even
mr
leonard
has
stated
similarly
and
shown
here.
You
know
this
was
in
a
paper
published
on
the
state
of
idaho's
website
that
we
do
require
a
tower
applicant
to
provide
detailed
information
on
the
process
used
to
select
the
subject.
Property
for
a
tower
apply
the
least
intrusive
means
test,
and
can
we
please
play
video
number
10.
O
O
So
the
telecommunications
act
does
allow
local
governing
authorities
to
deny
the
application,
provided
that
a
suitable,
alternate
location
exists
in
summary,
number
one:
a
single
a
properly
placed
tower
is
less
intrusive
than
two
poor.
Two
poorly
placed
towers
number
two.
The
ninth
circuit
court
holds
that
the
tower
placement
must
be
least
intrusive
means
possible.
O
O
I
also
wanted
to
expound
on
commissioner
roush's
after
he
expressed
reservations
about
the
true
necessity
of
the
tower.
He
went
on
to
explain
that
there's
internet
and
wireless
in
homes
in
the
area
so
the
only
time-
and
these
are
his
words-
so
the
only
time
you
are
not
connected
to
the
internet
are
times
when
you're
in
your
car
or
out
in
your
backyard,
which,
by
there
the
applicants
map
seem
to
have
sufficient
coverage.
O
A
P
P
P
P
This
is
where
this
is,
where
it's
critical,
it's
preservation
of
proper
private
property
rights.
This
title
shall
be
interpreted
to
equally
protect
citizens
from
the
undue
encroachment
on
their
private
property
by
their
neighbors
use
of
their
private
property
and
equally
protect
each
citizen's
right
to
use
their
property
without
creating
an
undue
burden
upon
their
neighbors.
P
Preservation
of
private
property
rights-
there
isn't
anything
in
here
that
says:
well,
if
an
engineer
comes
up
here
and
says,
there's
a
gap
in
coverage
we
set
aside
8-1-9
and
say:
oh
well:
private
property
rights
and
preservation
of
private
property,
of
neighbors
rights
to
a
proposed
project
all
go
out
the
window
and
also,
if
an
attorney,
that's
representing
a
telecom
or
wireless
tower
company
comes
up
here
and
says:
well,
you
know
it's
more
important
that
we
take
care
of
verizon
and
or
t-mobile
than
it
is
holding
it
withholding
holding
up
8-1-9,
which
is
to
protect
each
citizen's
right
to
use
their
property
without
creating
an
undue
burden
upon
their
neighbors.
P
F
P
E
Yes,
are
you
do
you
live
close
to
this
cell
tower.
A
N
G
F
You
were
the
appellant
on
the
tower
at
the
birds
of
prey.
Yes,.
G
As
soon
as
rough
tower,
video
two,
you
said.
I
N
Okay,
that
was
my
recording
there,
so
for
a
rational
person,
as
the
person
says.
N
N
N
This
is
not
outdated
evidence,
as
mr
leonard
would
have
you
believe
this
is
time
tested
evidence
that
any
rational
person
would
understand
as
being
accurate.
Mr
leonard
then
goes
on
to
challenge
the
broker
letters
as
being
unlawful,
and
my
neighbor
will
speak
to
that
point
next.
However,
before
I
leave
you
and
please
allow
me
to
share
these
quotes
from
licensed
real
estate
appraiser
robert
hefferman
from
february
2012.,
would
you
please
go
the
next
slide?
Please.
E
Mr
chair
is
this
appraiser
a
local
ada
county
appraiser.
E
E
We're
not
set
up
here
to
do
multimedia
events
here,
we're
supposed
to
be
getting
public
testimony
and
not
a
bunch
of
videos
and
trying
to
set
up
multimedia.
So,
let's
just
stick
with
your
heartfelt.
What
you
know
personally,
how
this
cell
tower
location
affects
you,
that's
what
we
want
to
hear
tonight.
Thank.
N
You
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
Do
I
have
a
little
bit
more
time
because
of
the
video
I
think.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
attention
of
this.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
C
E
C
C
A
Q
So
I
live
right
down
the
street.
My
name
is
hank
allen.
I
live
at
687,
west
brush
court.
I
live
approximately
about
a
mile
and
a
half
down
the
road,
and
I
travel
beacon,
light
road,
probably
twice
a
day,
I'm
a
real
estate
agent.
I
show
a
lot
of
houses.
I
know
this
is
going
to
be
an
undue
burden,
most
of
my
clients
when
they
see
a
cell
tower,
they
decide
to
either
move
on.
Q
They
move
out
to
the
country
in
these
homes
to
be
away
from
the
stuff
and
for
me
personally,
it'll
cause
a
huge
undue
burden.
The
last
cell
tower
that
was
installed
put
me
into
afib
just
got
out
of
the
hospital
and
had
an
ablation
surgery
three
months
ago,
so
anyways
don't
want
to
get
into
that.
What
I
really
want
to
get
into
here.
I
had
something
with
the
electrical
engineer
here,
mr
kennedy.
Q
He
he
showed
you
exactly
what
I
wanted
to
show
you
guys,
and
so,
when
he's
talking
about
the
rssi
right-
and
he
said
himself,
that
is
old,
analog
signals
to
make
a
phone
call
and
a
text
and
there's
plenty
of
coverage
that
is
covered
under
title
ii,
which
is
covered
by
the
telecommunications
act.
When
you
move
into
title
one,
which
is
digital
broadband,
which
he
pointed
out,
is
not
covered
by
the
telecommunications
act,
we
don't
want
digital
broadband
wirelessly
in
that
area.
Q
He
showed
you
his
maps
finally
would
get
the
information
from
him,
and
he
showed
it
yourself
that
we
have
coverage
from
all
three
carriers
to
make
phone
calls
and
texts
when
it
comes
to
digital
broadband
title
two.
We
want
that
hardwired
to
our
houses
and
have
the
option
to
turn
on
a
wi-fi
and
have
high
powered
internet
right
or
broadband
internet,
not
through
the
wireless
cell
towers
right.
He
gave
you
the
information
he
showed
it
to
you.
Q
So
I'm
going
to
show
you
anything
else
that
I
have
here
and
now
the
one
of
the
other
attorneys.
He
said
that
we
need
to
put
a
code
together.
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
really
good
idea,
so
the
citizens
of
dalton
gardens
of
northern
idaho
have
been
working
for
the
past
three
years
with
local
land
use.
Attorneys
and
federal
land
use
attorneys
to
write
a
wireless
ordinance
to
find
balance
between
what
the
fcc
or
excuse
me,
what
the
original
96
telecommunications
intent
was
and
providing
good
service.
Q
So
we
all
can
have
sell
co
cell
calls
and
send
text
messages
right.
So
what
I
have
here
that
I'd
like
to
submit
into
public
evidence
is
a
copy
of
their
ordinance
that
was
just
adopted
by
dalton
gardens
two
weeks
ago.
I
think
it's
a
really
good
model
and
it'll
help.
So
if
ada
county
can
adopt
something
similar
to
this,
I
think
we
will
eliminate
a
lot
of
these
hearings
and
we'll
it'll
kind
of
clarify
a
lot
of
this
information
that
we're
going
over
right
now.
Q
Q
R
Q
Then
one
other
thing
when
I
talked
to
the
the
appellant
earlier:
if,
for
some
reason,
there
was
any
kind
of
a
legal
repercussion
he's
willing
to
cover
attorney
fees,
to
have
a
cell
tower
attorney
andrew
campanelli
come
and
represent
ada
county.
Should
there
be
any
kind
of
backlash
if
you
decided
to
find
in
favor
of
the
the
appeal?
A
C
My
name
is
jordan
miller.
I
live
in
the
very
first
home
off
of
lanewood.
We
would
be
directly
in
front
of
that
cell
phone
tower.
Can
we
just
skip
ahead
to
the
image
of
the
proposed
tower?
It'll
be
two
slides
ahead?
Okay,
so
this
is
what
was
this
is
my
front
porch
so
skip
ahead
once
more?
C
C
Drawn
to
scale
theographic
rendering,
but
again
I
live
much
closer
to
the
tower.
So
this
vantage
point
is:
is
right
there.
That
is
my
home.
If
you
can
go
back,
please,
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
just
skip
the
videos
here
and
talk
to
you
about
my
personal
experience
when
people
don't
like
something,
it
translates
to
less
demand
and
the
applicants
have
stated
that
this
is
going
to
have
no
actually
go
to
the
next
slide.
That's
more
impactful!
C
In
the
background
there
they've
stated
that
there
will
be
no
effective
property
value.
If
someone
doesn't
like
something,
there
is
less
demand.
It
doesn't
really
matter
what
the
data
shows
right,
because
you're
dealing
with
public
perception.
So
not
only
is
this
going
to
inhibit
our
lives
on
a
daily
basis,
we're
in
this
area
on
a
third
generation
family
farm.
We
can't
believe
the
development
that's
gone
on
in
the
area
around
us
and
we
are
just
trying
to
live
a
happy
peaceful
life.
This
is
an
obstruction
of
that.
C
Not
only
will
it
affect
our
property
values,
but
we
own
an
organic
farm
and
we
cater
to
health,
oriented
individuals
again.
Data
aside,
these
are
the
people
who
unplug
their
wireless
modems
at
the
end
of
the
night
so
that
they're
not
affected
our
business
is
going
to
be
absolutely
crushed
by
erecting
something
along
these
lines
in
our
yard
that
you
know
basically
towers
over.
What's
supposed
to
be
an
organic
all-natural
agricultural
area.
C
This
was
the
original
intention
of
the
acreage
north
of
beacon
light,
and
when
you
look
at
the
map,
the
intended
area
of
coverage,
there
are
no
homes
here,
so
the
debate
related
to
coverage
outside
inside
there
are.
There
is
no
inside
right.
There
are
homes,
people
who
farm
corn
to
feed
their
neighbors
in
trying
times,
and
we
don't
care
about
having
coverage
right
and
then,
finally,
you
know
a
five.
You
know.
A
tower
of
this
nature
is
just
absolutely
going
to
demolish
our
customer
base,
in
addition
to
decreasing
our
property
value.
C
G
E
A
H
Name
is
david
de
haas
1116,
south
vista.
I
became
an
expert
in
this
over
the
last
two
years.
One
thing
she
failed
to
mention
why
it
will
crush
your
little
farm
is
because
we
know
that
these
towers
kill
the
pollinators.
I've
interviewed
the
topic.
E
E
H
That's
just
another
reason
why
we
create
the
best
okay,
so
the
other.
The
other
reason
we
asked
is
about:
why
did
eagle,
keep
it
out
of
their
neighborhoods,
because
eagle's
going
to
put
fiber
optics
to
the
premises,
the
smartest
way
and
the
safest
way
to
put
wireless
broadband.
The
applicant
is
a
wireless
broadband,
that's
internet!
That's
watching
your
netflix!
Getting
your
email!
It's
not
cell
phones,
cell
phone
calls
they've
mixed
data
to
approve
their
application.
Why
would
intermax
want
that
tower?
H
Well
if
they
can
get
another
person
to
locate
with
them,
verizon
that's
going
to
pay
their
costs
for
that
tower
and,
of
course,
get
a
recurring
revenue.
It's
kind
of
a
land
grab
what
we
talked
about
before
here.
Previously
many
people
are
seeking
working.
How
many
towers
can
we
put
up
because
that's
a
great
way
to
get
reoccurring
revenue,
so
the
smartest
thing
is
course:
broadband
in
the
ground,
it's
safe!
It's
secure.
H
H
H
That's
really
pretty
much
the
gist
of
it.
It's
pretty
simple!
You
should
deny
this
application.
For
those
two
reasons,
people
have
the
right
to
their
private
property
to
do
what
they
want,
and
these
farmers
the
same
thing
they
need
to
protect
their
property
and
that
will
demolish
their
property
having
that
next
to
them.
Thank.
A
Okay,
we
we
will
allow
a
rebuttal
from
mr.
S
Chairman,
yes,
we'll
see
for
the
record,
we
did
get
a
request
from
the
original
applicant
to
respond
to
new
information.
However,
I
know
her
zoning
code
does
only
reserve
rebuttal
for
the
applicant
or
the
appellant
of
the
current
application.
But
do
you
want
to
state
that,
for
the
record.
J
I
moved
to
idaho
two
years
ago
for
a
better
life
for
my
family
and
to
be
able
to
my
values
more
freely
right
where
that
tower
is
where
you
make
the
right
turns
where
I'm
building
a
house
on
10
acres
of
land
to
have
horses
and
cattle.
J
This
this
tower
is
what
I'd
be
viewing
from
my
backyard
and
deck,
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
many
reasons
I
left
california
was
leave.
Those
things
behind.
The
truth
is,
and
I've
lived
in
this
industry
for
a
long
time.
I've
never
had
better
coverage.
In
my
entire
life,
I
have
verizon.
My
wife
has
att
the
issue
about
in-home
coverage.
That
is
a
real
issue
in
major
metros.
J
They
want
in
building
coverage
because,
if
you're
in
the
building
you're
not
connecting
to
people's
wi-fi
you're
in
and
out
and
you
drop
calls,
but
for
all
of
us
at
home,
you're
connected
your
in-home,
wi-fi
and
the
device
knows
to
switch
from
cellular
to
wi-fi,
because
it's
a
better
signal
and
it
gets
it,
it
doesn't
require
to
use
up
all
your
cellular
data
and
wireless
companies.
We
count
on
that
happening,
but
there
are
no
homes
in
here
and
in-home.
Building
coverage
is
not
the
issue
and
broadband
coverage.
J
J
I'm
just
I'm
just
no
one
ever
asked:
no
one
ever
asked
them
about
the
shell
game.
Madam,
it
feels
like
it's
about
intermix
networks.
Then
they
came
up
here
and
they
go
no.
It's
about
t-mobile,
well,
the
verizon's
losing
coverage
the
whole.
The
whole
presentation
was
about
t-mobile's
data
and
they
never
brought
data
the
first
time
around
now
also
there's
data,
and
now
they
want
to
come
up
here
and
tell
you
know:
t-mobile
is
the
problem,
not
not
verizon.
You
know,
I,
I
feel
it's
misleading.
It's
disingenuous
those
slides.
J
They
showed
what
the
top
the
cell
tower
would
look
like
at
a
half
mile
away
versus
what
that
picture
was
literally
from
her
front
porch
photoshopped
in
I've
seen
prior
things.
Well,
ours
is
photoshopped
by
an
engineer,
so
it
must
be
better.
Anyone
can
photoshop
at
the
dimensions,
that's
her
view
from
her
front
porch
and
I
live
just
like
300
yards
from
where
jordan
lives,
and
this
is
I
this
is
not
why
I
came
to
idaho.
J
E
J
Tower
to
that
point,
not
only
I
didn't
get
a
discount,
I
bought
40
acres
and
I
sub
developed
one
of
the
people.
A
good
friend
of
mine
was
going
to
build
his
home
there.
He
pulled
out
because
his
wife's,
like
I'm,
not
building
our
home
next
cell
tower
and
I
tried
to
tell
him
look
it's
not
final,
we're
fighting
it.
They
have
denied
building
their
home
and
they're
good
friends
he's
in
a
bible
study
of
mine
because
of
his
wife's
concern
about
that
cell
phone
tower.
A
Any
other
questions
of
the
applicant:
no
okay,
no
all
right!
If
there's
no
other
testimony,
no
other
rebuttals,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero:
two
one:
zero,
two,
eight
one,
six
a
may
johnson,
okay,
public
hearing,
is
closed
for
discussion
with
the
board.
E
I
think
staff
isn't
probably
going
to
like
this
or
anybody
else,
but
I'm
I'm
really
looking
at
tabling
this.
I
just
feel
like
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
to
make
the
final
decision
on
this,
yet
I
think
I'd
like
to
table
it
and
instruct
the
applicant
to
do
more
research
on
the
blm
land
in
land,
that's
closer
to
16
and
bring
that
information
back.
E
I
don't
have
enough
evidence
here
today
that
they've
done
their
due
diligence,
that
this
is
the
right
location
and
they
can't
locate
on
blm.
We
changed
our
code
two
years
ago,
two
and
a
half
years
ago
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
applicants
did
their
due
diligence
on
federal
land
estate
land
and
then
we
included
even
county
land
first
and
and
like
achd
any
kind
of
public
right
of
ways.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
they've
exhausted
that
and
I
don't
think
that
they
have
at
least
I'm
not
satisfied
yet
at
this
point.
E
But
I
also
want
to
understand
we're
not
as
a
board
of
county
commissioners,
telecommunications
experts
and
we
get
inundated
in
these
meetings
with
all
of
this
data
and
and
lingo
and
rsrq
and
rsrp
or
whatever
this,
and
that
and
that's
just
a
you,
know,
people
putting
in
their
own
language
and
their
own
data,
and
we
don't
know
really
what
that
means,
and
we've
asked
staff
in
the
in
the
past
to
be
ready
that
we
need
to
hire
a
consultant
who
is
unbiased.
E
He
was
an
expert
in
this
to
take
a
look
at
propagation
maps
that
have
been
presented.
I
think
this
is
a
great
place
to
start
with
that
process,
because
we
were
presented
with
what
seemingly
looks
like
great
evidence
on
both
sides
right
and
I'm
not
in
a
position.
I'm
not
again
a
telecommunications
expert
to
make
that
call.
So
we
have
set
aside
some
funding
to
be
able
to
do
that
to
hire
an
expert
who
is
doesn't
have
skin
in
the
game.
E
All
right
and
then
I
would
also
like
us
to
explore
the
difference
between
in
the
in
the
telecommunications
act.
E
I
think
we
need
to
be
really
clear
about
that
language
right
and
I
think
our
attorney
has
that
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at
that,
but
also,
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
the
difference
between
wireless
broadband
versus
tel
cell
phone
towers
and
make
sure
that
they're
both
included
or
they're
not,
and
we
need
to
have
a
legal
opinion
on
that
as
well,
and,
let's
see,
I
think,
that's
all
I've
got
right
now,
oh,
and
I
would
I
would
leave
it
open,
I'm
sorry,
I
would
leave
it
open
for
the
appellants
to
come
back
with
any
evidence
that
they
have
of
their
land
values
being
diminished
by
this.
E
Whether
it's
a
statement
from
someone
who
pulled
out
or
or
whatever
you
can
provide,
would
be
really
helpful
for
the
record.
Okay,
so,
and
if
you
want
to
talk
to
your
real
estate
agent,
for
example,
or
show
evidence
that
properties
around
cell
phone
towers
have
been
reduced
in
value.
That
would
be
helpful.
So
I'd
like
to
leave
it
open
for
that
as
well.
A
Leave
it
open
for
public
testimony
or
for
written
comments
for.
G
E
E
G
E
E
E
A
F
I
think
yeah
total
number
of
houses
that
you
know
the
actual
custard
amount
customer
demand
is
something
worth
considering.
You
know
just
based
on
the
testimony
I've
heard
here.
I
think
you
know
people
there.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
moving
to
the
rural
areas
because
they
don't
want
to
see
the
cell
phone
towers
and
they're
willing
to
maybe
have
slightly
diminished
service
just
for
the
benefits
of
living
in
the
area.
A
All
right
for
the
discussion
hearing,
none
you've
heard
the
emotional
in
favor,
say
aye,
all
right,
hey
welcome,
carries!
Thank
you
thanks.
Everybody.
A
Okay,
we
have
one
more
table
item
that
has
been
put
back
on
the
table
for
discussion.
A
Motion
don't
favor,
say
hi
hi,
hey
hi
motion
carries
now
we're
hour
and
a
half
into
the
meeting.
We're.
A
Okay,
new
business,
first
venice,
I'll,
open
the
public
hearing
on
application;
two
zero:
two:
two:
zero
one:
zero:
eight
six
dash
v,
a
c,
a
c
raquel
kenley
I'll.
Have
the
staff
give
us
a
presentation.
T
Vac
ac
is
a
vacation
of
a
10
foot,
public
utility
easement
and
an
accessory
use
application
for
a
1
680
square
foot
accessory
structure.
The
property
is
located
at
4380
east
venture
place
in
the
rural
urban
transition.
District
venture
subdivision
was
approved
by
the
board
of
county
commissioners
in
1972.
T
The
10-foot
public
utility
easement
shown
on
the
plat
runs
north
south
through
the
center
of
lot
11..
The
10
foot
utility
easement
on
similar
lots,
lots,
7
and
9
event.
Venture
subdivision
have
already
been
vacated
at
this
time.
All
the
public
utility
holders
have
responded
in
writing
and
have
agreed
to
the
vacation
of
the
e-set.
T
T
T
U
U
I
have
an
rv
two
utvs
and
a
flatbed
trailer
and
enclosed
trailer.
E
Yes,
mr
trump
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
to
approve
project
number
two:
zero:
two:
two:
zero
one:
zero,
eight
six
v,
a
c
a
c
based
on
testimony
here
tonight
and
the
facts,
findings,
effects
and
conclusions.
So
far
that
we've
seen.
G
G
The
subject.
Property
is
located
on
cunemora
road
near
the
intersection
of
south
curtis.
It
is
a
20
acre
parcel
in
the
rp
district
surrounding
properties.
Are
all
zoned
rp
as
well
and
contain
single-family
homes
for
our
vacant.
Rangeland
should
note
that
the
city
of
cuna
city
limits
is
this
pink
area
to
the
west,
so
that
is
all
property
within
cuna's
city
limits.
G
G
P
G
Depicted
here
is
a
rough
sketch
submitted
with
the
zoning
certificate,
which
shows
the
approximate
location
where
the
property
owner
wishes
to
construct
a
new
single
family
home.
The
property
is
non-conforming
as
it
is
under
the
40
acre
minimum
required
in
the
rp
district.
So
again
it's
only
20
acres
in
size,
so
it's
half
of
what's
normally
required.
G
It
was
created
via
an
illegal
subdivision
in
1983,
a
previous
owner
and
relative
of
the
applicant
was
informed
of
this
back
in
1993,
via
an
application
from
the
city
similar
to
a
what
we
call
property
information
request
today,
which
basically
evaluates
properties
and
and
tells
somebody
what
they
can
do
with
them.
If
they're,
buildable
or
not-
and
at
that
time
it
was
deemed
non-buildable
in
93
and
to
this
date
it
still
remains
non-buildable.
G
So
why
that's
important
for
a
non-conforming
property
such
as
this
to
be
buildable?
It
must
meet
one
of
the
two
criteria
listed
here
so
either
the
property
is
deemed
conforming
and
shall
be
eligible
for
permits
if
it
meets
the
dimensional
standards.
The
base
district
in
which
it
is
now
located.
So
obviously
it
doesn't
check
that
box.
I've
already
informed
you,
40
acres
is
required.
This
type
of
property
is
only
20.
or
it
could
be
buildable
if
it
meets
one
of
the
two
other
following
standards.
G
It
was
conforming
at
the
time
that
it
was
created
in
the
base
district
and
then,
due
to
his
own
change,
became
non-conforming.
As
I
mentioned
in
the
staff
report,
the
minimum
lot
size
of
the
time
was
at
least
40
acres.
If
not
80
acres.
I
apologize
for
not
remembering
that
exact
detail,
so
it
wasn't
a
legal
subdivision.
G
It
didn't
meet
the
standards
of
the
zoning
district
at
the
time
when
it
was
created
and
then
two
if
it,
if
it
had
a
building
perm,
had
a
building
on
it
prior
to
1985
and
then
through
calamity
or
destruction,
they
would
be
allowed
to
pull
a
new
building
permit.
That
section
of
code
has
been
interpreted
a
little
less
severely.
We
don't
necessarily
require
riots
and
catastrophe
to
issue
new
permits,
but
if
a
property
had
a
structure
on
it
pre-85
and
they
want
to
build
a
new
home,
we
can
allow
them
to
do
that.
G
So
this
one
didn't
have
a
home
on
it.
Pre-1985
to
our
knowledge
and
record,
it's
never
had
a
home
on
it,
so
again
doesn't
qualify
for
a
permit
under
that
option
either.
I
can
pause
and
answer
questions
on
that.
It's
a
little.
It
can
be
a
little
confusing
at
times,
but
so,
unfortunately,
the
options
property
doesn't
check
either
those
boxes
and
therefore
it
still
remains
unbuildable,
as
it
did
back
in
both
83
when
it
was
originally
created
in
93.
G
When
we
told
the
previous
owners
that
it
was
unbuildable
so
comments
received
from
agencies,
you
know
in
general,
no
one
has
an
issue
with
the
property
being
developed
for
a
single
family
home.
Our
building
official
will
just
require
a
permit.
If
that's
something
that
the
board
allows
to
happen
here
today,
health
district
is
obviously
going
to
require
their
process
for
any
septic
system.
Achd
had
no
issue
with
the
project
and
in
terms
of
the
conference
of
plan.
A
single-family
home
here
doesn't
necessarily
create
an
issue
with
our
comprehensive
plan.
G
G
So
in
conclusion,
we
are
recommending
denial
of
the
appeal
based
on
the
fact
that
it
doesn't
check
the
box
for
non-conforming
properties,
and
we
ask
that
you
affirm
the
director's
denial
of
the
zoning
certificate,
which
again
is
the
process
that,
by
which
someone
can
get
a
building
permit.
G
It
should
be
noted
that
the
property
is
in
a
land
use
designation
that
could
potentially
support
a
rezone
to
our
rr
or
rural
residential
district,
which
has
a
minimum
lot
size
of
10
acres
and
through
that
process
you
know,
could
receive
building
permits
and
eligibility
for
a
single
family
home.
Some
of
the
advantages
of
that
approach
again
not
talking
anybody
into
anything,
is
as
a
non-conforming
property.
G
He
could
receive
approval
for
a
building
permit
for
the
home,
but
then,
if
he
wants
to
build
a
shop
or
something
else,
we're
kind
of
back
in
the
same
spot,
where
we've
got
this
non-conforming
property
that
it's
tough
for
us
to
issue
the
building
permit
or
zoning
certificate.
Because
every
time
that
comes
up,
we
have
to
evaluate
the
property
for
compliance.
So
a
rezone
might
actually
be
a
better
option
here,
just
as
a
possible
remedy.
If
this,
indeed
is
denied
so.
E
G
No
chairman
commissioners
know
we're
not
looking
to
change
minimum
lot
sizes,
we're
really
not
doing
anything
with
dimensional
standards.
I
think
we
have
explored
some
lock
coverage
things
that
staff
recently
did
a
few
updates
on,
but
we
might
do
that
some
in
some
other
zones
as
well,
but
yeah
no
change
to
minimum
lot
size
or
anything
like
that.
E
Okay
and
then
I'm
back
to
the
cuna
area.
This
is
in
the
area
of
impact
and
they
are
just
one
lot
right.
Yes,
okay,
so
who
owns
that
lot
right
there
to
the
left.
G
Do
we
know
chairman,
commissioner,
I
am
not
certain
who
owns
it
as
a
single
family
owner
or
single
an
individual
property
owner.
Just
I
don't
know.
E
Okay,
so
one
of
the
questions
I'll
ask
the
applicant
is,
if
they
know
them
or
if
they're
interested,
if
they
could
and
be
an
extended
cuna.
That
would
solve
the
problem,
but
that
little
that
little
tiny
piece
there.
Would
that
prohibit
that,
because
that
little
tiny
piece
would
because
it
has.
L
L
G
G
Yes,
chairman,
commissioner,
to
the
right
is
funny
enough:
another
property
created
around
the
same
time
as
this
property,
but
they
had
a
they
got
a
building
permit
and
put
a
home
on
it
pre-85.
So
now
they
qualify
under
item
2b
here,
where
they
had
a
dwelling
prior
to
85
and
had
a
building
permit.
So
now
they're
allowed
to
come
back
and
do
another
home,
and
they
recently
actually
constructed
that.
I
think
two
to
three
years
ago.
So
that's
to
the
east.
G
It's
just
a
another
property
identical
in
nature
in
terms
of
size
and
zoning
as
the
subject
property.
But
again
they
they
just
got
busy
pre-85
and
were
able
to
do
something
to
the
west.
Is
another
20
acre
parcel
haven't
checked
whether
or
not
that
was
created
via
legal
subdivision,
but
I'm
assuming
it
was
a
lot
of
properties
in
this
area
were
created
via
illegal
subdivision
to
the
north.
We've
got
some
state-owned
land
and
then
there's
a
city
of
boise
shooting
range
for
their
police
department,
which
is
just
a
little
bit
farther
west.
G
South
we've
got
again
single
family,
at
least
one
single
family
home
to
the
south
and
then
directly
south.
It's
just
a
vacant
property.
So.
G
Chairman,
that's
possible,
the
staff
would
want
to
evaluate
that
they
have
again
proper
frontage
and
things
like
that.
It
on
its
face.
It
looks
like
yes,
two
lots
could
be
possible
here,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
again
say
yeah
go
for
two
lots.
We
definitely
could
do
one.
A
Just
the
just
the
10
acre
minimum,
you
know
yeah.
G
G
F
Two
three
four:
no
five
over
or
is
that
just
keep
going
to
the
right
over.
G
S
A
Clayton,
if
you're
here,
if
you'd
like
to
take
a.
V
V
Anyhow,
as
he
passed
away
here
in
october,
I'm
just
trying
to
find
a
way
to
resolve
the
last
issues
with
the
property,
the
one
to
the
the
first
10
acre
parcel
to
the
east.
We
just
recently
sold
because
it
was
allowed
the
building
permit,
and
so
the
acre
acreage
that
we're
talking
about
was
also
attached
to
the
one
to
the
left-hand
side
there
to
the
west
and
that's
when
my
parents
separated
they
split
it,
and
I
don't
think
they
realize
at
the
time
that
that
would
take
away
the
building
permit
issue
and
stuff.
V
V
A
You're
saying
these
two
narrow
strips
there
they're
10,
acre
parcels.
A
V
I'm
not
sure
on
that,
but
I
but
the
one
in
between
the
two,
the
ten
and
the
one
that
we
that
I
the
last
one
that
we
own.
That's
when
he
was
just
talking
about
that
in
1985.
It
had
a
building
put
on
it
and
then
that's
been
re.
They
can
rebuild
on
it
because
it
was
done
prior
to
1985..
G
Chairman
this
is
the
directly
east.
Well,.
G
Been
built,
this
one
has
a
home
that
had
a
home
pre-85
and
it
just
recently
rebuilt.
V
I
don't
know
that
when
my
parents
separated
and
they
went
through
the
divorce-
and
they
did
a
quick
claim
to
even
split
that
40
acres
that
we're
talking
about.
Currently,
I
don't
know
that
at
the
time
that
they
were
aware
that
they
weren't
going
to
be
able
to
build
or
sell
it
as
a
buildable
piece.
F
V
G
Yeah,
chairman
commissioners,
there's
two
40,
there's
80
acres
here
total
under
our
current
code.
It
would
allow
at
least
two
buildable
lots
and
then,
under
past
versions
of
the
code,
there
used
to
be
an
opportunity
to
create
what
was
called
a
farm
development
right
parcel,
which
was
a
much
smaller
parcel
and
then
some
of
the
larger
parcels
could
be
deemed
multiple.
So
funny
enough,
you
could
have
got
probably
four
based
on
a
1993
letter.
G
There
could
have
been
possibly
four
buildings
total
four
parcels
buildable
here,
but
it
would
have
required
them
to
recombine
everything
and
go
through
those
processes
with
ada
county
and
they
never
did
that.
They,
it
looks
and
it's
clear
they
sold
off
pieces
here
and
there
so
that
ability
to
reassemble
the
parcels
seems
really
difficult
at
this
point.
So.
V
Through
because
they
can't
yeah,
I've
had
several
offers,
but
the
minute
they
find
out,
they
can't
build
on
it
they're.
You
know
the
price
goes
way
down,
and
so
it's
just
a
matter
of
going
through.
Whatever
steps
we
need
to
do
to
find
out
how
to
rezone
it
so
that
we
can
get
a
build
permit
on
so
that
there's
because
there
is
interest
in
it,
I've
probably
got
to
have
more
than
a
half
dozen
people
that
are
are
wanting
it
and
stuff,
but
they.
A
A
F
G
Chairman
via
zoning
certificate,
which
is
the
planning
side
of
a
building,
permit
necessary
to
construct
a
single
family
home.
A
That
is
our
alternative
tonight
now
we
can
give
some
recommendations
moving
forward,
but
it
seems
to
me
in
my
in
my
view
that
we
have
the
zoning
court
application
their
zoning
ordinance
as
it
sits
right
now,
and
it
seems
to
me
like
it
would
be
proper
and
it
would
be
easier,
maybe
a
longer
process
to
request
a
rezone,
okay
and
that
the
way
leon
suggested
it
would
take
a
little
longer
but
you're
not
in
any
hurry
to
build
a
home
there
and
you
got
eight
or
ten
applica
people
who
want
to
buy
it.
E
So
if
we
do
that,
though,
then
we're
going
to
end
up
with
probably
two
homes
versus
one
where,
if
we
go
ahead
and
accept
the
zoning
certificate
on
this,
we
could
limit
it,
put
conditions
of
approval
on
it
and
limit
it
to
one
family
single-family
resident
and
the
only
reason
I'm
thinking
of
going
that
direction
is
just
the
location
of
it.
It's
it's
in
an
illegal
subdivision,
but
it's
right
next
to
where
cuna
is
going
to
be
putting
and
has
actually
put
their
industrial
zone.
E
There's
a
buildable
lot
right
next
door
to
it.
It's
in
between
a
shooting
range
in
the
in
the
prison.
So
I
don't
know
if
it
would
really
be
bothersome
to
any
cause
any
hardship
for
any
of
the
neighbors
out
there.
I'm
just
afraid.
If
we
go
through
the
rezoning,
we
might
end
up
with
more
homes
out
there
than
we
would
just
approving
it
here
today.
So
that's
kind
of
my
dilemma
so
well.
A
E
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
that
that
we
approve,
or
we
overturn
the
the
director's
denial
of
the
zoning
certificate
and
approve
the
zoning
certificate,
with
the
condition
of
approval
that
they'll
be
only
one
single-family
home
built
on
the
slot
and
based
on
the
testimony
here
today
and
what
I've
seen
where
the
slot
actually
is.
It's
just
I
mean
it's
just
right
there
from
being
annexed
into
cuna
as
well.
So
this
is
going
to
happen
and
I
just
assume
go
ahead
and
let
the
gentleman
try
to
sell
it
while
he
can.
F
Motion
I'll
second,
that
because
it
doesn't
preclude
an
application
for
re-zone
either,
but
based
on
the
testimony
I've
heard,
I
think
you
know
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do
I'll.
Second,
that.
A
The
tablet
to
get
some
revised
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
and.
S
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
we
do
have
a
second
public
hearing
on
july
27th
that
we
could
table
this
to
help
give
leon
enough
time
to
prepare
those
revised
findings.
S
S
C
No
I'm
not
concerned,
I
was
doing
a
motion
to
approve
it
and
overturn
the
director's
demaio
and
then
table
revised
findings
until
july
26th.
Is
that
correct?
So
we
have
an
approval
and
just
rolling
tabling
revised
menus.
Yes,.
D
A
Well,
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion.
I
think
it's
that's
a
good
good
way
forward
for
you
and
if
you
want
add
another
lot,
you
can
try
to
get
it
rezoned,
but
in
the
meantime
you
can
go
ahead
and
sell
it
so
yeah.
Well,
in
favor
of
the
question
of
the
motion,
you've
heard
the
motion
say:
aye
aye
aye
cares.
A
Okay,
we
have
I'm
gonna
open
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero
two
one:
zero
102
852
zcda-msp.
A
W
Dermis
for
chairman
and
commissioners
project
number,
twenty
twenty
one,
zero,
two,
eight
five,
two
z
c
dash
d,
a
dash
m
s:
p
is
a
zone
awareness
map
amendment
to
result
approximately
0.661
acres
from
the
medium
high
density,
residential
district
to
the
very
high
density
residential
district,
along
with
the
development
agreement.
W
W
Following
the
first
public
hearing
in
front
of
the
plank
and
zoning
commission,
the
applicant
made
significant
changes
to
their
proposal
and
brought
forth
a
new
proposal
which
was
heard
by
the
plan.
Zoning
commission
at
their
may
12
2022
public
carry
to
address
neighbor
concerns.
The
most
significant
change
is
only
utilizing
lot.
15
block
three
of
fiddler's
gland
subdivision,
which
is
the
southern
property.
W
W
The
future
land
use
map
and
the
boise
commercial
plan,
as
adopted
by
a
county,
designates
the
property
as
compact,
which
has
a
target
density
of
six
to
fifteen
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
lists
apartments
as
a
primary
use.
The
property
is
also
located
within
a
within
a
neighborhood
activities
center,
which
has
a
target
density
of
eight
to
sixteen
units
per
acre
and
allows
projects
designed
in
accordance
with
the
city's
design
standards
have
even
higher
densities.
W
W
W
Since
the
structure
has
a
footprint,
that's
greater
than
10
000
square
feet,
it
must
be
designed
such
that
the
building
mass
and
bulk
are
distributed.
The
structure
has
been
designed
that
building
mass
and
bulk
are
distributed,
as
there
is
varied
setbacks
within
the
structure
providing
for
a
varied
outward
appearance.
W
There
are
variations
of
the
horizontal
offsets
of
the
structure,
facade
and
a
change
in
grade
from
the
front
of
the
building
to
the
rear
of
the
building
staff
finds
that
the
multi-family
development
is
in
compliance
with
a
county
code
as
it
complies
with
the
specific
use
standards
for
multi-family
development.
Along
with
the
standards
for
a
master
site
plan.
W
W
Staff
is
recommending
approval
this
project
to
the
board,
because
a
multi-family
development
is
an
appropriate
use
for
the
site.
This
small
multi-family
development
will
help
to
increase
the
supply
of
diverse
and
affordable
housing
options
in
the
treasure
valley.
In
addition,
staff
believes
that
the
site
design
can
provide
safe,
ingress
and
egress
onto
south
maple
grove
road.
The
development
is
estimated
to
generate
81
additional
vehicle
trips
per
day
and
seven
additional
vehicle
trips
per
hour.
W
Numerous
members
of
the
public
have
provide
comments
on
this
application.
Main
concerns
include
parking
specifically,
your
multi-family
residence
parking
adjacent
residential
streets
achieves
requirement
for
the
for
an
only
right
in
right
out
access
for
the
development
and
compatibility
to
surrounding
homes.
W
The
specific
building
construction
requirements
of
their
national
building
code
and
the
international
fire
code
will
apply
the
a
country
highway
district.
I
reply
that
this
development
is
estimated
to
generate
81
additional
vehicle
trips
per
day
and
seven
additional
vehicle
trips
per
hour
in
the
pm
peak
hour
and
that
traffic
counts
on
lake
hizzle,
road
and
maple
grove
road
are
with
an
acceptable
pm
peak
hour
level
of
service
e
key
conditions
of
approval
include
the
following:
access
into
the
site
shall
be
approved
by
the
county
highway
district.
W
The
afghan
owners
shall
submit
landscaping
and
screening
plan
that
complies
with
article
8-4
after
the
accounting
code.
As
I
mentioned
before,
the
planning
zone
commission
is
recommended
denial.
This
application
to
the
board
staff
finds
that
this
application
complies
with
the
accounting
code
and
the
adopted
cumbersome
plan
is
recommending
approval.
This
application
to
you
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
F
So
when
this
project
was
brought
to
staff,
they
were
proposing
22
units
that
is
correct
is
that
22
town
homes
within
like
how
many,
how
many
buildings,
how
many
units
per
building.
W
Originally
and
I'll
kind
of
go
to
the
aerial
photo,
commissioner
davidson,
so
originally
they
were
playing
there's,
as
you
can
kind
of
set
the
car
there's
two
watts
here.
So
we
have
the
the
southern
line.
We
had
northern
lot
so
originally,
with
their
initial
proposal.
W
The
main
issue
with
the
development
beyond
the
northern
laws
achd
through
their
policy,
they
have
a
policy
that
you
have
to
take
access
off
of
the
road
that
has
the
lesser
functional
classification,
so
lake,
so
lake,
hazel
and
maple
grove
roads
are
both
arterial,
roadways
and
hobo.
Avenue.
Here
is
a
local
road
so
based
on
their
policy.
W
They.
If
the
the
applicant
wants
to
develop
on
both
lots
here,
they
require
the
access
to
come
off
of
oboe
avenue,
obviously,
at
the
first
public
hearing
that
we
had
from
the
plains
commission,
that
was
a
very
you
know-
very
contentious
with
the
neighbors.
Obviously,
didn't
want
to
have
that
access
off
of
boba
avenue,
so
the
app
can
scale
back
the
proposal
and
is
just
proposing
to
have
the
development
on
the
southern
property
and
therefore
to
meet
the
open
space
requirements
that
we
have
for
multi-family
developments
as
well
as
to
have
adequate
parking.
W
They
basically
made
their
pro
their
proposal
just
on
that
southern
lot.
W
So
people
are
going
to
enter
off
of
maple
grove
so
if
we
go
back
to
the
site
plan,
so
we
have
kind
of
this
is
lake
isle
road,
and
this
is
maple
grove
the
applicant.
Well,
the
the
residents
will
enter
off
of
maple
grove
road.
So
this
is
the
entrance
to
the
to
the
complex
and
then
they
would
exit
out
here
as
well.
So
they
would
have
to
come
once
around
about
spill.
They
would
come
up
turn
right
and
then
obviously
to
exit.
They
would
have
to
turn
right
onto
maple
grove
road.
W
According
to
the
the
ach
staff
report
in
their
integrated
five-year
work
plan,
the
roundabout
is
expected
to
be
constructed
in
2023
is
way.
Acc
is
planning
on
constructing
that
roundabout.
The
design
phase
of
it
is,
I
think,
95
percent
complete.
F
W
So
I
think
the
the
rationale
that
acsg
has
for
their
functions
for
their
access
is
basically
the
it's
more
related
to
the
function
of
the
roadway
itself.
So
if
you
have
an
arterial
roadway
artillery,
it's
going
to
have
more
traffic
and
the
function
of
an
arterial
roadway
is
to
move
basically
traffic
through
a
region,
whereas
a
local
street
is
is
obviously
designed
for
forward
cars.
You
know
utilizing
a
local
street
and
the
local
street
is
intended
to
have
more
access
points.
W
That's
where
your
individual
driveways
are
off
of
the
local
street,
whereas
with
arterial
roadway
to
preserve
the
functional
functionality
of
the
roadway
to
move
traffic,
you
want
less
driveways
than
you
would
on
a
local
street,
and
so
that
therefore
acc's
policy
is,
when
you
have
a
property
that
fronts
more
than
one
street,
that
the
access
comes
off
of
that
roadway.
That
has
the
lex
the
lesser
functional
classification,
because.
F
You
don't
want
to
slow
down
traffic,
exactly
be
the
rationale,
so
they
they
scaled
it
back
to
12
and
then
still
got
turned
down
by
png
z.
That's.
W
F
Was
the
was
the
size
of
the
the
overall
size
of
the
building
still
the
same,
but
just
the
units
were
bigger
or
did
they
decrease
the
overall
square
footage
of
the
product.
E
W
So
that
would
be
so
the
next
there's
a
for
the
half
mile,
it's
desert
avenue
and
then
mile
away
would
be
amity.
Road.
W
X
Good
evening,
richard
wilmot
chrysalis
architecture,
3914
east
presidential,
meridian,
idaho
commissioners.
Thank
you
for
the
time
tonight.
We
we
are
asking
for
approval
of
our
rezone
to
r20
as
brent
mentioned,
and
I
I
brought.
I
prepared
a
small
presentation
just
to
kind
of
take
us
through
the
process
that
we've
gone
through
with
this
application.
X
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
Brent
did
a
great
job
in
terms
of
capturing
the
high
points
of
where
we've
come
from
and
how
we've
got
to
the
point
that
we
are
here
now,
as
as
brett
mentioned,
the
the
the
intersection
of
lake
hazel
and
maple
grove
is
a
neighborhood
activity
center
in
the
bois
city
of
boise
comprehensive
plan.
X
What
that
means
is
that
there's
a
variety
of
uses,
there's
a
variety
of
intensities,
a
variety
of
densities
that
are
expected
to
be
occurring
at
that
intersection
or
very
near
that
intersection
within
a
quarter
mile
radius,
and
so
this
particular
use
our
our
our
particular
project.
It
very
much
complies
with
what
could
be
expected
when
this
property
is
annexed
into
the
city
of
boise.
X
My
discussions
with
the
city
of
boise
are
such
that
they
aren't
sure
when
that's
to
occur,
whether
it's
going
to
be
three
years
five
years.
Ten
years.
We
don't.
We
don't
really
know
that
yet,
but
it's
going
to
happen,
the
boundaries
of
the
city
of
boise
are
very
close
to
this
particular
intersection.
X
X
I
don't
have
anything
in
writing
my
discussions
with
the
city
of
boise
or
such
that
they're,
just
so
they're
they're
so
backed
up
that
they
couldn't
give
us
a
report
that
either
supported
my
discussions,
but
it
would
be
expected
that
this
could
be
an
r3
zone
or
an
r1
m
zone,
something
that
is
much
higher
than
a
20
units
per
acre
density,
and
so
our
proposals
from
the
beginning
have
always
been
less
than
20
units
per
acre.
X
Our
current
proposal
at
the
12
units
on
just
the
southern
lot
is
18.2
units
per
acre,
so
we're
we're
very
much
in
that
zone
of
of
what
would
be
expected
here
with
that
I'm
providing
sort
of
an
example
of
what
the
comprehensive
plan
for
this
particular
corner
looks
like
in
the
city
of
boise,
and
it
shows
it
shows
that,
as
brent
mentioned,
that
this
area
is
designated
to
be
compact.
X
This
particular
lot
is
is
intended
to
be
compact,
so
it
again
it
would
be
expected
that
it
would
have
a
much
higher
density
than
what
we're
currently
proposing
with
that
said,
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please
grant
out
just
a
little
bit,
so
this
was
our
first
proposal
and
and
one
of
the
significant
items
or
issues
with
this
particular
property.
X
Is
that
because
it's
in
the
county
it
it
has
a
it,
has
a
moratorium
on
sewer
connections,
this
particular
property.
The
southern
lot,
only
not
the
northern
lot,
but
the
southern
lot
prior
to
the
moratorium
was
provided
with
a
four-inch
sewer
connection.
So
by
nature,
we've
we've
gained
approval
from
city
of
boise
public
works
that
we
would
be
able
to
connect
to
that
sewer
connection.
That's
already
being
that's
already
provided
to
the
to
the
southern
lot.
X
Well,
given
that
it's
a
four-inch
connection
and
that
it's
in
ada
county,
we
would
only
be
allowed
up
to
like
23
units
or
24
units
in
total
on
two
lots.
X
So
we
proposed
this.
We
we
recognized
that
the
neighborhood
would
have
concerns
about
accessing
or
vehicular
access
to
oboe,
and
we
in
our
design
are
were
suggesting
that
we
take
a
drive
vehicular
access
only
onto
maple
grove.
Inevitably
achd
did
not
approve
that
we.
We
got
a
staff
report
at
the
very
last
moment,
literally
within
hours
of
our
of
our
initial
meeting
and
basically
denying
denying
the
access
and
then
in
turn
forcing
us
to
take
access
off
volvo,
and
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
said
okay.
X
X
It
is
it'll,
it
does
reduce
the
overall
scope
of
the
project,
but
again
it
keeps
the
density
right
at
about
18.2
units
per
acre,
and
with
that
you
know
there
were
obviously
concerns
of
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
pedestrian
access,
vehicular
access
and
just
general
impact
of
the
particular
area.
However,
the
development
is
not
out
of
character
for
what
the
comprehensive
plan
is
to
be
expected
for
this
lot
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please
our
second
proposal
involved
again
reducing
it
to
the
southern
lot,
keeping
it
to
just
to
12
units.
X
We
we
were
required
to
maintain
a
a
space
for
cross
access
in
the
future
and
that's
significant
for
the
reason
of
that.
Any
development,
whether
it's
this
development
as
a
multi-family
project
or
commercial
development
or
retail
development
or
any
development,
would
be
given
the
same
criteria
that
we
were
in
terms
of
taking
access
from
the
lower
classified
street,
which
would
be
elbow
because
we
don't
have
that
connection
anymore.
On
the
south
lot.
X
Achd
wanted
us
to
provide
cross
access
between
what
is
the
south
florida
and
the
north
lot,
and
we
we
didn't,
have
any
objection
to
that.
Our
initial
thought
here
on
the
second
proposal
was
that
lake
hazel.
E
X
And
again,
it's
not
particular
to
this
type
of
use.
It's
any
development
on
this
on
these
two
parcels
would
be
required
to
take
access
for
moba,
so
it
could
be
a
5,
000
square
foot
retail
center.
It
could
be
a
restaurant,
it
could
be
anything
it
would
always
have
to
come
through
oboe.
So
this
this
lot
is
a
little
bit
restricted.
Given
this
particular
area
and
the
fact
that
achd
is
recommending
that
we
do
take
access
from
maple
grove,
we
find
that
as
an
opportunity
here
to
take
advantage
of
with
that.
X
You
know
there
were
certain
concerns
of
the
neighbors.
At
that
time.
We
then
went
back
to
the
drawing
board,
one
of
the
things
that
we
go
to
the
next
slide
there
brent.
One
of
the
things
that
we
we
went
through
is
just
to
say
show
what
the
overall
context
of
the
intersection
looks
like.
I
prepared
a
site
plan
that
shows
what
the
roundabout
looks
like
with
the
adjacent
sidewalks
with
the
adjacent
crossings
through
the
through
the
roundabout,
as
there
were
safety
concerns
that
were
brought
up.
X
The
the
the
reality
is
that
with
the
crossings,
okay,
if
you
could
wrap
it
up,
yeah.
Thank
you,
okay.
This
shows
overall
context
with
our
site
in
the
roundabout
and
the
existing
buildings
of
the
apartment
complex
across
the
street
and
the
next
slide
brent.
X
And
then
our
final
proposal
here
again
12
units
parking
and
the
integration
of
the
roundabout,
and
I
stand
for
any
questions.
X
X
No,
and
now
that
was
one
thing
I
did
want
to
clarify,
they're
the
same
size
units
that
were
initially
proposed,
just
just
reduced
number
of
units,
so
the
overall
building
square
footage
came
down,
but
the
the
but
the
design
of
the
units
they
were
all
two
bedroom
units
and
and
that's
the
same
same
design
as
what
we
had
initially
provided.
I
mean.
X
The
target
market
here
very
much
very
much
middle
class,
we're
not
intending
to
provide
a
low
income
situation
and
we're
not
also
intending
to
provide
very
high
income
situation.
It's
very
much
characteristic
of
what
is
what
is
the
neighborhood
now.
W
E
Leon,
we
didn't
add
the
exhibit
that
hank
gave
us.
G
G
Correct
and
there
will
be
a
memo
for
that
item
so
I'll
list
those
exhibits
during
in
that
memo.
So
all.
A
Right
good
night,
all
right
and
you'll
have
this
exhibit
here.
Are
there
any?
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
audience
wish
to
testify
on
this
project?.
Y
Ahead
is
that
your
name,
I'm
susan
lynch
and
I
live
at
8808
west
dulcimer,
which
is
down
the
street
from
the
circle.
I've
been
to
all
three
meetings
that
has
been
discussing
this
property
and
I'm
one
of
those
neighbors
that
he
keeps
speaking
of,
I
speak
for
ruth
that
lives
right
next
to
the
property.
I
speak
for
the
two
older
ladies,
that
live
across
the
street
that
couldn't
come
to
the
meeting,
because
one
has
coveted
and
one
is
trying
to
take
care
of
her
son.
That
is
ill.
Y
Y
It
is
not
this
big
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
the
picture
makes
it
look
bigger
than
it
is,
but
I
speak
for
our
neighborhood
that
has
about
20
families
with
little
15
families
with
little
children
that
run
around,
because
we
don't
have
backyards
and
that
neighborhood,
whatever
they're
talking
about
our
kids,
can't
play
next
to
lake
hazel,
there's
at
least
663
cards
and
cars
that
go
across
it.
Just
at
the
peak
hour
of
the
day,
they
can't
play
on
that
little
grass
area
that
is
not
safe
for
our
kids.
Y
They
run
around
the
neighborhood
in
the
road
and
outside
of
all
of
our
yards.
It
is
a
great
neighborhood.
I
pretty
much
know
every
single
house
and
I
speak
for
them.
I
know
that
our
neighborhood
does
not
want
this
traffic
coming
in
our
neighborhood
and
we
don't
want
the
parking
in
previous
meetings.
The
commissioners
planning
and
zoning
commissioners
stated
that
stated
that
it
wouldn't
make
sense
to
put
this
property
down.
Put
this
21
units
on
this
lower
end.
He
had
44
on
two
pieces
of
property
and
now
that
he
lost
his
second
buyer.
Y
Y
People
in
the
apartments
will
find
a
place
to
park
there.
They
will
park
in
our
streets
on
average
every
night.
We
walk
around
our
circle
and
we
there's
a
lease
during
the
day
22
cars
in
the
last
week,
every
single
day
during
the
day
on
our
circle
during
the
night
that
number
rises
up
to
35
to
40
cars
that
are,
that
is
just
the
people
that
live
in
our
circle
that
are
off
oboe
the
this.
Y
If
you
put
the
apartments
they
will
find
a
way
to
park
in
that
dirt
area,
they
will
find
a
way
to
walk
around
that
common
area.
That
they
say
is
a
play
area,
which
I
don't
see
how
it
is,
it's
achd
drainage
ditch
and
they
and
my
kids,
we
don't
let
them
go
down
and
play
in
the
drainage
ditch.
They
will
also
see
that
I
don't
know.
I
have
eight
seconds.
I
just
want
you
to
invite
you
to
come
check
this
out
personally
come
meet
our
neighborhood.
Y
F
Y
It
is
grass,
but
those
people's
backyards
are
right
there.
So,
when
your
kids
are
playing
there,
it
honestly
feels
like
you're
in
their
backyard,
so
my
kids
don't
really
play
there.
Even
though
we
live
right
up
on
that
street
because
it
you
can't
see
them
for
one
lake
hazel's
right
there
and
it
is
full
of
traffic,
especially
that,
hence
why
they
want
to
put
a
roundabout
there.
So
there's
so
much
traffic
on
the
castle
that
it's
really
not
safe
for
our
kids
to
they
can
play
there,
but
we
can't
see
them.
Y
I
would
assume
not
that
little
cement
thing
that's
right.
Next
to
the
site,
I
imagine
is
owned
by
the
water
district
or
achd.
I
don't
know
and
then,
if
you
keep
going
over,
that's
where
the
drainage
ditch
begins,
and
I
honestly
don't
know
who
owns
land
if
it's
hoa,
I
I
don't
know
rhoa
is
not
very
commun.
They
don't
communicate
very
well
with
the
residents
of
our
area,
so
we
they
don't
represent
us,
but.
Y
F
Y
Y
E
Z
Hi,
my
name
is
andre
ross
and
I
live
at
6062
south
tambourine
avenue
just
a
little
bit
away
from
the
location
of
this
apartment.
Complex,
I'm
gonna
read
first
a
letter
that
my
wife
wrote
she's
unable
to
be
here
at
this
time
and
then
I'm
going
to
hopefully
get
a
little
bit
of
a
laugh
through
some
legos
okay.
Here
we
go
to
whom
it
may
concern,
I'm
a
resident
in
the
loop
directly
impacted
by
the
rezoning
proposal
for
apartments
in
lake
hazel,
maple
grove.
Z
As
I
have
stated
in
previous
two
planning
and
zoning
commission
meetings,
I
am
being
only
opposed
to
the
rezoning
of
four
children
ages,
19
months
to
12
years.
I
believe
the
consideration
for
rezoning
will
make
our
neighborhood
much
more
dangerous,
not
only
for
my
children,
but
for
the
dozens
of
others
that
live
and
play
in
our
neighborhood.
Most
of
us
do
not
have
a
yard
space
and
our
children
popcorn
play
between
all
the
front
yards
and
driveways.
The
increased
traffic
and
limited
parking
will
put
our
children
at
increased
risk.
Z
Also,
as
said
before,
there
are
several
school
bus
stops.
That
would
be
impacted
by
this
apartment.
Complex
that
was
mentioned
in
the
different
planning
and
zoning
meetings,
as
they
both
stop
on
lake
hazel
and
maple
grove,
and
I
feel
that
the
african
has
not
done
their
due
diligence
with
achd
concerning
the
traffic
circle
impact
on
the
traffic
for
such
a
small
lot
and
how
close
it
is
to
the
traffic
circle.
Z
Please
deny
this
request
for
good,
so
that
the
applicant
can
pursue
a
more
suitable
build
for
our
neighborhood,
such
as
a
townhouse
that
matches
with
the
surrounding
buildings,
as
that
has
been
the
ongoing
concern.
As
far
as
compatibility.
Z
Oh,
I
have
a
little
bit
of
time.
Awesome.
So
does
this
thing
work,
I'm
not
gonna
do
the
technology.
I
promise.
I
will
that's
too
much.
I
know
I
don't
want
to
fight
with
technology
there.
It's
okay,
I'll,
just
show
you
all
here.
So
this
is
actually
our
wonderful
neighborhood.
So
this
is
the
watson
square.
You
don't
see
all
of
it
there.
So
this
is
me
it's
not
to
scale
as
you
can
imagine.
I
wish
I
was
that
tall.
Z
This
is
my
wonderful
neighbor's
neighbor
susan
hi,
susan
she's,
right
here,
and
so
this
is
our
little
square.
That
she
keeps
talking
about-
and
this
is
the
access
over
here
from
from
oboe
here's
dulcimer.
This
is
my
road
tambourine,
and
this
is
the
apartment
complex
and
again,
yes,
it's
not
to
scale,
but
it
actually
is
showing
the
number
of
units
of
12
that
they
are
anticipating
have
in
relation
to
the
other
houses
in
there.
The
reason
these
are
two
two
by
fours
is
because
these
are
town
hose.
Z
These
are
duplexes,
or
these
are
single
family
homes.
It's
not
compatible,
it
doesn't
fit
to
the
neighborhood,
and
you
really
should
deny
this.
Thank
you
so
much.
F
V
W
S
Z
So
there
is
the
best
way
for
me
to
come
over
here.
Is
this
easy?
So
there
are
a
couple
bus
stops
that
are
right,
actually
right
here,
along
lake
hazel,
a
little
bit
further
down
so
again
the
traffic
circle
is
coming
here
and
there's
also
when
you
come
up
maple
grove.
You
have
access
into
this
neighborhood
where
we're
at
which
is
banjo
that
correct,
yes,
banjo,
so
the
band
shows
the
cross
street.
Z
Z
A
But,
sir,
if
you
could
state
your
name
for
the
record.
R
My
name's
logan
osler,
I
live
at
8890
west
dulcimer
street
in
boise.
I
speak
for
me
and
for
my
partner
crystal
huerta,
who
couldn't
come
tonight,
but
we
both
live
there,
we're
about
three
houses
away
from
the
lot
in
question,
and
I
I
know
in
previous
meetings.
They
said
that
we
meet
or
the
project
meets
the
amount
of
parking
spots
that
is
required,
but
I've
never
been
to
a
parking
or
a
apartment
complex.
R
I
had
adequate
parking
and
I
don't
think
anyone
else
here
has
either
so
I
mean
that's
obviously
has
to
overflow
to
us
because
we're
the
only
street
nearby
and
there's
like
they
said:
there's
children,
dogs,
people
walking
around
in
the
streets,
there's
already
parking
problems.
Last
time
I
parked,
I
had
to
go
three
houses
down
from
where
I
live,
so
it
I
think,
that's
going
to
be
a
problem.
R
Also,
I
didn't
realize
that
the
north
lot
was
had
to
come
in
through
oboe,
which
was
the
problem
in
the
first
meeting,
and
it
sounds
like
they're
probably
going
to
expand
to
that
and
then
it's
going
to
come
through
and
then
we
just
have
the
same
problem
we
did
in
the
first
meeting.
So
I
would
urge
you
guys
to
maybe
have
them
go
back
and
talk
to
achd
about
it
or
whatnot
and
and
deny
the
request,
because
I
I
think
to
quote
the
commissioner
from
the
last
meeting.
R
R
Don't
like
a
townhouse
or
a
home
or
something
not
a
12-unit
apartment
complex
that
is
going
to
have
you
know
it
it's
two-bedroom,
but
when
I
was
younger
we
got
a
two-bedroom
and
slammed
four
roommates
in
there
with
four
cars.
You
know
to
decrease
costs,
plus
your
I
mean
one.
Super
bowl
party
is
going
to
overflow
that
so,
like
a
town
has
a
home,
I
don't
know
they
said
like
a
restaurant
or
something
but
well.
R
A
A
F
Close
the
mr
chair,
are
we
gonna,
have
the
applicant
close
it
out
or.
A
X
Thank
you,
commissioners,
just
to
clarify
a
few
items
that
were
raised
by
the
neighbors.
Now
the
project
was
never
44
units.
Our
initial
proposal
was
was
22..
X
The
the
other
consideration
relative
to
the
sewer
moratorium
is
that
the
connection
only
allows
connection
to
one
building
on
on
one
parcel,
which
is
why
it's
it's
more
of
an
apartment
type
situation
as
opposed
to
a
town
home
type
product.
That
would
be
on
multiple
lots,
so
we're
only
allowed
the
one
connection,
a
town
home,
a
townhome
development
would
require
multiple
connections
and
and
the
way
that
the
moratorium
is
written
now
is
that
that
would
not
be
allowed.
X
So,
however,
once
once
it's
annexed
into
the
city
of
boise
that
completely
changes,
so
it's
it's
because
of
the
it's
because
of
the
moratorium
that
we're
only
limited
to
that
as
far
as
the
the
common
area
that
is
to
the
to
the
to
the
east,
that's
that's
all
common
area,
that's
that's,
run
and
maintained
and
owned
by
the
subdivision.
It's
part
of
the
plot
for
the
subdivision,
which
these
two
lots
are
a
part
of.
So
these
lots
are
actually
a
part
of
the
subdivision.
X
And
so
anybody
in
the
subdivision
is
allowed
to
use
them.
That's
why
the
pathway
is
there.
It's
meant
to
promote
connectivity,
pedestrian
access,
and
we
are
effectively
doing
the
same
with
this
particular
development
by
showing
added
and
enhanced
pedestrian
connectivity,
so
that
you
know
the
neighbors
can
actually
get
to
know
one
another
meet
each
other
talk
to
one
another.
X
We
we
actually
showed
in
the
bottom
right
corner.
If
you
can
highlight
the
little
bus
stop
area,
we're
anticipating
that,
there's
going
to
be
potentially
children
in
this
in
within
the
building
and
to
us,
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
place
for
them
to
to
wait,
and
it's
part
of
the
connect
pathways
that
are
provided
with
particular
with
this
development
and,
in
terms
of
you
know,
parking
on
the
streets.
I
don't
envision
the
the
residents
of
this
particular
building
parking
on
on
the
street
on
oboe.
That
is
a
public
street.
X
Anyone
can
park
there
at
any
time,
but
if
they
wanted
to,
they
would
have
a
long
trek
across
the
northern
lot
that
isn't
intended
to
be
developed,
at
least
not
by
us,
so
it
would
be
rather
complicated
for
them.
At
this
point,
however,
we've
offered
in
the
past
to
make
that
connection
and
maintain
that
connection
to
the
north
via
pedestrian
pathway,
so
that
option
is
still
available.
If,
if
the
commission
so
chooses
all.
F
So
you
still
own
the
northern
lot.
F
X
Yes,
commissioner,
davidson
basically
we're
required
a
landscape
buffer
around
all
perimeters
of
our
property.
We're
intending
to
provide
that
there'll
be
trees
that
are
that
will
be
placed
there.
There's
curbing
there's
drainage
considerations.
X
This
particular
lot
is:
is
sloped
such
that,
if
you
can
actually
go
to,
I
think
one
of
the
elevation
views
brent.
I
wanted
to
show
in
context
yeah
go
up
one,
that's
actually
yeah,
so
this
this
bottom
photo
here.
It
kind
of
shows
the
elevation
of
the
grade
difference
so
that
longer
image
that
shows
the
existing
residence
and
the
height
of
it
relative
to
the
height
of
our
building.
X
The
green
area
is
basically
the
height
of
the
of
the
grade
as
it
traverses
from
the
south
up
to
the
north.
So
we
we
effectively.
Are
I
don't?
I
don't
envision
that
being
something
that
they
would
want
to
do
unless
there's
a
pathway
there
effectively
in
terms
of
providing
access,
pedestrian
access.
X
They
would
have
to
drive
over
a
curb
to
make
that
happen
and
there
and
there
there
very
well,
could
be
some
sort
of
garden
wall
or
retaining
wall
along
that
northern
property
line
just
to
be
able
to
break
the
grade
and
make
our
make
our
grades
work.
But
we
would
work
that
out
through
the
design
process.
D
F
W
We
do
some,
commissioner
davidson
for
a
two
bedroom
apartment,
you're
required
to
have
two
parking
spaces
for
each
unit
and
then
for
multi-family
development,
you're
required
to
have
a
for
each
apartment,
you're
required
to
have
.25
parking
spaces
for
visitor
parking,
and
so
with
the
12
units.
You're
required
to
have
three
visitor
parking
spaces
which,
with
this
development,
would
be
27
parking
spaces
that
would
be
required.
D
X
No,
we
we
didn't
plan
for
rvs
or
trailers,
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
condition
of
of
being
a
resident
in
this
particular
this
particular
building
that
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
on
on
the
parking
lot
premises.
So
so
I
don't
I
don't.
E
Thanks
so
how
close
are
they
to
being
annexed
into
the
city
of
boise.
W
I
would
say
they're,
probably
about
a
mile
away,
so
the
city
of
boise
at
sea
limits
is
probably
near
coal
and
lake
hazel
and
so
they're
about
a
mile
away
from
that.
So
maybe
a
little
bit
less
than
a
mile.
So
probably
three
quarters
of
a
mile
to
a
mile.
W
See
you
boys
and
their
carpenter
plan,
they
have
basically
kind
of
two
types
of
centers.
They
have
a
community
activity
center,
which
is
like
hazelnut
five
mile
and
that's
kind
of
where
your
grocery
store
anchor
is.
You
know,
that's
a
lot
of
mixed
use
and
then
the
neighborhood
activity
center
is
basically
a
smaller
center.
So
that's
more
activity
center.
That's
really
serves
the
immediate
neighborhood,
so
that
would
be
maybe
you
know,
be
kind
of
multi-family.
A
Okay,
I
hear
no
further
testimony.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
application,
202
102,
852,
zcda,
msp
and.
A
Oh
they'll
they'll
get
a
picture
and
post
it
in
all
right
all
right,
so
the
application
being
closed.
What
is
the
what's
the
board.
E
Well,
mr
chair
I'll,
kick
it
off
here
yeah?
I
think
that
this
is
compatible
for
this
area,
but
I'm
having
a
pro
a
hard
time
with
a
couple
of
things,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
with
the
requirements
from
achd.
I
don't
know
when
they're
going
to
build
number
one
they're
going
to
build
that
roundabout.
It
could
be
five
years.
E
E
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
table
it
or
or
just
deny
it
and
have
the
applicant
go
back
to
your
chd.
The
other
thing
is
really
problematic
for
me
and
to
get
the
timing
on
that,
but
the
other
one
is
the
special
requirements
that
achd
is
asking
for
eda
county
to
require
a
cross-access
easement
between
this.
These
two
sites,
these
two
parcels.
So
when
that
north
develops
then
they're
demanding
that
the
traffic
then
go
into
that
subdivision
to
access
it,
and
so
this
sets
up
a
problem.
E
If
we
approve
this,
it
sets
up
a
problem
for
the
next
development
that
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with,
and
so
I
would
just
assume
deal
with
it
now
and
I
think
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
for
denial
and
and
ask
the
applicant
go
back
to
achd
and
remove
that
requirement
and
also
get
a
date
for
us
on.
So
we
know
when
that
roundabout's
going
to
be
built
at
least
to
estimate
when
it's
going
to
be
built,
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
leaning.
E
Yeah
it's
on
page
seven
on
page
seven,
and
it
says
they're
going
achd
is
requiring
access
to
be
taken
from
south
maple
grove
road,
not
lake
hazel.
They
have
a
special
recommendation
data
county
to
require
a
cross-access
easement
between
the
these
two
sites.
That
would
allow
the
site
when
it's
developed,
the
north
was
developed
to
have
access
from
oboe
avenue
when
that
site
develops,
and
that's,
I
think
what
the
neighbors
had
a
problem
with
the
first
time.
Is
you
don't
want
all
this
traffic
from
an
apartment
complex
going
into
your
neighborhood
access.
F
E
It
would
be
limited
to
the
northern
development,
but
I
can't
imagine
that
people
that
would
live
there
wouldn't
use
it
as
well.
I'm
just
saying
by
us
approving
this.
It
sets
up
a
problem
for
that
second
lot,
and
this
to
me
is
an
achd
problem
issue
that
needs
to
be
resolved
before
we
do
a
final
improvement
approval
on
it.
I'm
not
saying
I'm
not
going
to
approve
it
if
they
come
back,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
what
we
have
right
now,
I
think,
is
problematic
for
the
future.
E
I'm
not
asking
achd
to
do
anything.
I'm
asking
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
deny
this
application,
but
I'm
going
to
recommend
that
the
chrysalis
architecture
company
go
back
to
achd
and
get
a
date
on
that
when
that
roundabout's
going
to
be
finished
and
see
if
they
can
get
that
requirement
removed
on
the
cross
easement
on
the
cross
easement,
and
then
I
think
we
would
hear
it
again.
A
S
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
we
we
would
recommend
tabling
to
the
august
10th
public
hearing
to
give
the
applicant
addict
with
time.
E
Mr
churro
make
a
motion
to
table
project
two:
zero:
two
one:
zero:
two:
eight
five:
two
z
c
d,
a
m
s
p
to
august
first
august,
tenth
2022
to
have
time
to
go
back
and
meet
with
achd's
staff
to
see
if
they
can
get
the
cross
easement
recommendation
or
it's
not
even
a
recommendation,
get
that
removed
and
then
also
to
be
able
to
tell
this
board
what
achd,
where
they
have
this
in
their
strategic
plan
to
be
built.
E
F
Well
before
I
do
that,
I
I
mean
I
want
to
kind
of
say
where
I'm
at
and
I
you
know
overall,
very
supportive
of
us
building
new
housing
in
ada
county.
I
mean
we're
desperate
for
new
housing.
We
all
know
what
the
market
is.
We
know
all
know
how
hard
it
is
to
find
apartments,
and
so
I'm
very
you
know
open
to
development,
especially
of
middle
class
housing
that
we
need,
and
that
has
to
be
obviously
balanced
against
the
needs
of
the
neighborhood
and
obviously
nobody
wants
more
traffic.
F
But
you
know
we
cannot,
you
know,
tell
people,
they
can't
build
houses,
it's
just.
We
want
to
do
it
the
right
way,
but
considering
the
state
of
the
county
and
the
the
need
for
the
housing.
I
lean
more
towards
the
development
side
of
things
if
it
can
be
done
the
right
way.
So
I
am,
I
am
supportive
of
you
getting
some
apartments
out
there,
but
for
now
I
will
second
the
motion-
and
you
know
hopefully
we'll
get
you
back
here
and
get
it
get
something
done.