►
From YouTube: September 26, 2022 BZA Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
The
board
comprises
five
members
not
made
by
the
mayor
and
through
by
Common
Council
board
members
presence
of
Mayor
Michael
Cannon,
Andrea,
Garnier
and
Joseph
Kirby,
and
as
well
as
assistant
planner,
Samuel
Jacobs
assistant,
City
attorney
Victor
Kessler
and
Zoning
administrator
Megan
Wilson
Staff
to
the
board.
I
am
the
American
care
person
on
the
board,
the
secretary
to
the
board
of
Eden
Wilson,
who
called
each
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda.
Collins
will
not
have
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
to
present
new
material
or
highlight
aspects
of
their
appeal
board.
B
Members
make
a
question
of
balance
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
Just
full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
the
public
hearing,
cooperation
of
employed
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
adult
has
filed
appropriate
documents
at
the
zoning
Division
and
planning
and
development
board
public
hearing
simply
testimony
from
interested
parties.
The
board
considers
interested
parties
versus
Computing
the
property.
That's
where
authorized
representatives
have
recognized
adjacent
people
and
Civic
groups
or
who
are
elected
senior
officials,
board
members
and
questions
testifying
in
Jurassic
parties
of
any
areas
requiring
clarifications.
B
Persons
who
do
not
need
the
board's
interested
party
definition
will
not
be
heard.
Comments
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
Balance
will
then
be
allowed
to
revoke
opposing
testimony,
but
Alex
Thomas
must
be
limited
to
strict
rebuttal
of
the
issues
raised
on
this
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
The
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
Keepers
a
lot
of
time.
While
we
do
not
adhere
to
strict
rules
of
evidence,
we
do
consider
the
supplies
of
judicial
proceeding
and
we
base
our
decisions.
On
the
official
record,
the
official
record
consists
of
application
materials.
B
Five
of
the
zoning
divisions,
correspondence
related
to
cases
received
at
his
own
division,
finding
the
development
report
its
own
findings
and
recommendations.
If
any
other
records
needed
an
audio
recording
is
being
made
in
this
meeting.
Therefore,
it
is
essential
anyone
wanting
to
be
heard
from
it
speaks
correctly
into
a
microphone,
so
the
comments
are
recorded
in
nerd
by
all
present
extraneous
comments
from
the
audience
will
rather
be
recording
or
considered
by
the
board.
We
ask
everyone
to
limit
their
comments
and
design
issues
of
each
appeal
and
not
comment
on
that
or
human
or
jurisdiction.
B
Following
the
imbalance
rebuttal,
the
appeal
hearing
will
be
closed
unit
of
Liberation.
The
board
is
required
to
render
a
decision
from
62
days
of
the
public
hearing
disclosures
once
the
hearing
is
closed.
No
further
testimony
will
be
taken.
It
takes
three
votes
to
approve
the
motion
to
granted
varians
in
favor
of
their
interpretation
and
eventually
tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
review
and
actually
Podium
and
column
at
the
back
of
the
room,
as
well
as
on
the
city's
website.
B
C
The
Proposal
also
includes
the
addition
of
six
remote
Radiohead
units,
six
over
voltage,
protection
boxes,
six
CBC,
combiners
and
Associated
cables
with
companies
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility
or
bwsf
located
on
the
rooftop
of
Mary
dollar
Hall
on
the
Cornell
University
campus
The
Proposal
is
considered
a
modification
of
the
existing
pwsf.
The
city
recently
amended
article
5A
telecommunications
facilities
and
services
of
the
zoning
limits,
and
the
amendment
requires
all
pwsf
to
located
at
least
250
feet
from
the
case
of
residences.
C
C
115
North,
Cross
Road,
is
located
in
the
U1
district
and
which
proposed
installation
is
permitted.
However,
sections
325,
29.6
and
325
29.16
require
compliance
with
article
5A,
including
the
location
requirements
set
forth
in
section
325
29.8
before
a
building
permit
may
be
issued
section
325
29.28
authorizes
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
to
Grant
variants
from
any
position
of
article
by
way
right,
I
think
we
have
Tim
and
Bob
here
for
this
appeal.
D
Good
evening,
Robert
Bergdorf
the
law
firm,
Nixon
Peabody
here
tonight
on
behalf
of
Verizon
Wireless.
The
review
of
the
project
that
was
just
made
I
think
captures
it
well,
it
is
an
existing
facility.
Providing
Services
is
a
mere
antenna
change.
It
will
have
no
discernible
effect
or
change
really
with
respect
to
zoning.
Because
of
this
proposal,
all.
B
Okay,
no
questions.
I
have
no
questions
either
we're
now
looking
to
help
in
public
hearing.
C
We
do
not
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
this
evening,
either
in
support
or
opposition,
and
we
have
not
received
any
written
comments.
We
do
have
the
planning
Works
recommendation
and
which
states,
as
this
is
an
existing
non-conformity
and
an
update
not
causing
visual
impact.
The
planning
board
finds
no
long-term
negative
impacts
to
training.
E
E
Factors
considered
whether
there's
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
the
detriment
of
the
nearby
properties.
No,
the
installation's
modification
of
existing
personal
Wireless
facility
that
has
been
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property.
For
many
years,
the
new
installation
will
replace
existing
equipment.
There's
no
evidence.
This
change
will
produce
an
undesirable
change
to
Neighborhood
character.
Whether
the
benefits
sought
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variance.
E
No,
the
locations
of
personal
wireless
service
facilities
are
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements,
while
there's
a
limited
radius
where
the
pwsf
can
be
located.
It
is
preferred,
as
stated
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
to
locate
co-locate
equipment
on
existing
sites
whenever
possible,
to
limit
any
individual
impacts
for
more
in
the
alternate
location
within
the
dominant
radius
of
this
property
will
also
be
deficient
in
the
Resident
setback
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
E
No,
the
proposed
installation
will
be
located
on
a
roof
of
the
residential
structure,
and
a
residential
setback
of
250
feet
is
required
by
its
owning
ordinance.
While
this
is
100
deficiency
of
the
required
setback,
this
is
deficiency
caused
by
the
location
of
the
existing
facility,
on
which
the
new
antenna
array
will
be
co-located
and
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
The
Proposal.
The
variants
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood.
No,
the
equipment
will
be
part
of
an
existing
installation
of
the
property
and
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
B
Is
there
a
second
okay
board
members?
It's.
A
B
A
C
C
Has
been
approved,
you'll
get
a
written
decision
from
the
board
within
the
next
couple
of
days
and
we'll
communicate
this
with
the
building's
Mission
as
well,
so
we'll
be
able
to
go
ahead
and
issue
your
permit.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
me
afterwards,
please
let
me
know
thank.
A
C
A
C
This
is
appeal
of
appeal
number:
three:
two:
three:
zero
for
222
South,
Kansas,
Street,
appeal
of
T-Mobile,
Northeast
of
LLC
and
Center
Line,
Communications
LLC,
the
property
owner
David
Hart
for
an
area
variance
from
section
325,
29.8,
C1
design,
standards
for
personal
wireless
service
facilities
of
the
city
of
zoning
organs.
The
Advocate
proposes
to
replace
pre-existing
antennas,
install
additional
equipment
to
the
company's
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility,
pwsf,
located
on
the
rooftop
of
the
property
at
222,
South
Pika,
Street,
The
Proposal
is
considered
a
modification
of
the
existing
pwsf.
C
The
city
recently
amended
article
5A
telecommunications
and
facilities,
and
the
amendment
requires
all
pwsf2
located
at
least
250
feet
from
adjacent
residences.
The
existing
installation
of
this
property
is
approximately
170
feet
from
the
nearest
residential
building.
This
is
existing
deficiency
that
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
this
proposal
and
I've
read
the
remaining
information
in
the
summary
about
the
relevant
code
sections
so
I
believe
we
have
are
some
color
here
for
this
appeal.
G
G
Nope,
that's
all
I
have.
B
Okay,
I,
like
the
one
before
we're
going
to
open
this
up
to
questions
from
the
board
members
and
no
questions,
no
questions.
No,
and
that
brings
us
to
public
hearing
right.
C
We
do
not
have
any
written
comments
or
anyone
who
signed
up
to
speak
either
in
favor
or
in
opposition
to
the
appeal.
I
do
have
a
comment
from
the
planning
boards,
which
states,
as
this
is
an
existing
non-conformity
in
an
update
not
causing
visual
impact.
The
planning
board
finds
no
long-term
negative
impacts.
B
Same
and
say
hello,
existing
is
there
somebody
that
would
like
to
make
a
motion
with
this.
F
F
So
the
board
acknowledges
this
is
an
existing
facility
and
the
modification
will
not
exacerbate
the
existing
facility
factors
to
consider
one
whether
an
undersirable
change
will
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties.
No,
the
proposed
installation
is
a
modification
of
the
existing
facility
that
has
been
on
that
property
for
20
years.
F
The
new
installation
will
in
place
existing
and
there's
no
evidence
that
the
change
will
result
in
an
undesirable
change
to
the
neighborhood
to
whether
the
benefit
by
the
result
by
the
output
can
be
can
be
achieved
by
a
single
alternative.
No
the
locations
of
each
facilities
are
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements.
F
Well,
there
is
a
limited
radius
where
the
facility
can
be
located
heard,
as
stated
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
co-locate
equipment
on
existing
sites
whenever
possible,
to
limit
any
individual
and
in
fact,
furthermore,
any
alternate
location
within
the
limited
radius
of
this
property
would
also
have
the
same
deficiency
three.
Whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
No,
the
proposed
installation
will
be
located
120
feet
from
the
nearest
residential
structure
and
a
residential
setback
of.
A
F
Feet
is
required
by
designing
an
RNs,
while
this
is
a
deficiency
of
32
percent
of
the
required
setback.
This
is
a
deficiency
caused
by
the
location
of
an
existing
facility
site,
on
which
the
mutant
kind
of
array
will
be
located
and
will
not
exacerbate
any
deficiency.
Four,
with
the
variance
having
their
diverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
of
the
neighborhood.
No,
the
facility
equipment
will
be
part
of
an
existing
installation
on
the
property.
There's
no
evidence
to
indicate
that
the
alteration
will
have
any
adverse
impact
by
whether
or
not
the
difficulty
is
upgraded.
G
F
A
F
D
C
D
C
D
A
C
A
B
So,
whenever
you're
ready,
if
you
could
just
present
a
summary
to
the
to
the
this-
is
a
continuation,
so
we
saw
you
last
time,
but
again
just
a
recap.
In
summary,.
A
A
E
A
Like
really
having
some
sound
issue,
I'm
Scott
cieland.
C
A
C
D
A
C
You
hear
me
now:
yes,
the
problem
we're
having
was
with
Scott's
iPad,
so
we
had
to
the
process
of
elimination.
Have
him
step
out
in
the
room
for
a
minute?
I,
don't
know
if
he
has
another
way
to
join,
but
it
was
causing
a
lot
of
repeat
sound
play
in
your
mood.
If
you're.