Laserfiche WebLink
LEITHEAD TODD: Perhaps we could move -. <br />DOMINGO: Those are all basics, those are all basics. What we’re not -. <br />METTLER: Or perhaps maybe we could -. <br />LEITHEAD TODD: Perhaps we could move this along based on the existing language and then <br />let the County Council and -. <br />IWASHITA: Yeah, the real power -. <br />LEITHEAD TODD: You know, discuss it. Because I’m sure that they will discuss this <br />particular, because there’s at least one Council Member I think who sued on the <br />telecommunications tower next door. So I’m sure that it will be weighed into significantly. <br />METTLER: Well, I just thought that maybe we could do this beforehand. I would just <br />urge you to consider even if you wanted to remove Residential out of those and just leave in -. <br />So it would be similar to what we believe that the Act 171 was doing before we got the opinion. <br />So in the Agricultural property, which is the majority of what we have here, on Ag land be able <br />to permit antennas if they’re on an existing legal structure. I think that, I understand where the <br />concern is for Residential, keeping in mind too that we would have to come back to you for any <br />time we were going to add an antenna on a tower that has a special permit, because you’re now <br />requiring a use permit. So every time we want to add an antenna we’re going to have to come to <br />you to get a use permit; and I don’t think that that’s really your intention. <br />WOODWARD: Well, Commissioner Kern. <br />KERN: Yeah, I think as far as having an existing building on a piece of Ag land <br />and to be able to allow an antenna to go on top of that without a permit I disagree with. I think if <br />there’s an existing building with an antenna already on it, and it has already been approved to do <br />a co-location on top of something that’s already existing, it would be acceptable. To me with <br />just saying that if there’s a structure there and we can put it on top of that without a tower, it’s <br />just a loophole. I mean, let’s build a barn and put an antenna on top of it instead of building a <br />tower. <br />METTLER: Well, the way they had worded it is that there was a sentence that in no <br />way does this, can you do that. If the barn is built for the purpose of putting an antenna on it <br />then that’s not, that should be covered. If we can say in no way does this, is this, is there an <br />intention to permit any structure for the sole purpose of doing the, or not even for the sole <br />purpose -. But there’s got to be some way to word it. <br />KERN: Yeah. And what’s the problem with getting a special permit on -? <br />METTLER: Special use permit? <br />KERN: Yeah. <br />8 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />