and variance board is now in session. Um, I ask everyone to turn off any electric gadgets they may have and please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Carbon, >> present. >> Mr. Crawford, >> here. >> Present. >> Terry Bowman, >> present.
>> Susan Anderson, >> let the record show all members are present with the exception of member Hutmaker. >> Thank you. We have a quorum. So, let us proceed. Um the first item on the agenda is uh any comments or proposals
concerning the proposed agenda. Um I have one and that is to add a review and approval of the minutes of the last session and I'll do that now. Um are there any comments from any members of the board concerning the
minutes from the last session? Do we have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I. >> Any opposed? >> The motion carries. Um,
are there any comments from the public regarding the agenda? Any additions or items you'd like to see added? I see none. Um, let's uh turn to the first of the two agenda items we have, which is a
request for variance at 131 Passage Island. Do we have a representative for the applicant? >> Make sure that's on, please. >> There we go. Hi, good morning. I'm Sandra Renick from the law firm of Gold Cookie Finel. On behalf of the owner,
the Madsens, um, we submitted a variance request. The property is a residential property with required setbacks of 12.5 and 25 on the front and 30 at the rear. We have two encroachments, one on the northwest sideyard set back of.32 ft and
into the southwest front yard set back by 1.67 ft. The house has been in existence um since 1994 when it was built by the developer. Um it has changed hands twice, but this is the first time such an encroachment has been caught. We submitted a survey and um I
would request the variance on behalf of the owners um as a result of an undue hardship. >> My understanding is that the footprint has not changed since it was constructed. Is that right? >> Correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Any questions or comments from the
board? >> Any comments from the public? I did. Excuse me. >> I did have a question. Sorry. Um what brought this encroachment to your attention and what is the purpose of the um of seeking the variance now? >> Sure. Um so the property became under
contract and was ready for sale. Um the sale has been postponed until which time we can correct this um determined defect if you will. Um but we did have it change hands twice. It never was caught in the past. Uh but we looked at the surveyor's notes and determined that they were correct and that the best
course of action was to seek this corrective variance. >> Okay. And could I ask a question of Pete? I guess it with with this um if this variance is granted, it is um it
would be only for the existing encroachment and so any future development would not be able to take advantage of like the encroachment. Is that correct? >> Generally speaking, yes. And that would be applicable to any variances. So the
idea is, and let me just clarify. Miss Renick said there are two distances. One is under a foot and that can be administratively approved. The reason we're here is because of the one that's over a foot, but under 3 ft. That will be up to your approval. But what would
happen is if it's approved today, that would be the final part. It doesn't need to go to the town council for any further approval. It would be uh confirmed at 1.6 >> uh 1.37 >> 1.37 feet. >> Oh no, 1.67.
>> Thank you. 1.67 ft. And so that specific side at that distance will be what we have now with the building department going forward. And if somebody were to try to add another foot, it would require a variance. So it would have to stay within that footprint. That's absolutely correct.
Okay. >> Any other board questions or comments? Any questions from the public? >> Can I have a motion? >> Motion to approve as uh apply for. >> Any second?
>> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed? >> None opposed. Uh you have your variance. As Mr. Sweeney mentioned, it's winon a three-foot application and therefore this board has the authority to grant it. You should get a letter in a few
days. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a good day. >> Let's look at the second application from John's Island relative to a uh communication tower in a district zoned R2A. Is there a representative for the
applicant? >> Good morning. Uh I'm John Blum, engineer with LJA Engineering representing the applicant. Also have Michael Cororpar uh with John's Island. And uh we're here today to request a variance for the relocation
of an existing communications tower. Uh the tower is located at their administration facility on one Turtle Beach Road. Uh to the best of our knowledge, we couldn't totally confirm, but we think the original tower was
built sometime in the '9s and it had a 60 ft height at that time. Um the new tower, which is being relocated 4.8 ft away from the existing tower uh and has been shortened to a height of 45 ft.
And um we provided a site plan uh on the site plan itself. Uh we met all the conditions of the code uh we've demonstrated what the fall zone is for that tower being 45 ft and it is that radius is shown on on the site plan and
it's all within uh the confines of the administration property. So I'll be glad to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Actually, I found the uh the application somewhat confusing for a variety of
reasons, but uh let me see if I can clarify some of them. The application says the site is at one Turtle Beach Road. When I Google that, I got a residence deep in the John's Island uh development. Um is that the correct
address? Because we don't allow Mike Corpar, general manager of John's Island. Because we don't allow Google Maps and all that to ride our property. Google Maps, any application that gives you directions, gives you the wrong address. It is one Turtle Beach Road. It takes you over to Coil is where it takes you.
>> I I I've learned that when I try to get driving instructions, chef, >> but yes, it is the building to the right as you enter the South Ocean side gate. >> That is the correct address. Um there's also it also the application
also stated you looking to relocate the towel but if I look at the site plan you seem to be at the exact same or virtually the exact same location. >> Yeah it's it's ver like I said it's less than 5 ft. I think we measured at survey 4.8 ft uh of relocation >> from where the current tower is.
>> Correct. Okay. Correct. >> And and the new tower will be a monopole tower. >> Correct. Yeah. The old one like I said was 60 ft high. Had the guy wires. This one's a a monop pole without wires. >> The the only other concern I have is the fall radius.
And with respect to the structures, I understand those are John's John structures, but I'm mostly concerned with the safety of personnel and that's a working area. There's going to be a lot of people moving about there. And is there a concern with the safety of personnel working in that area? Uh and
given that what alternative locations were considered for this tower? >> Um well I mean the tower has been engineered and it's been engineered to current wind load um requirements. So as
far as the structural stability of the tower, we meet the rules of that. Uh, as far as another location, I don't know, Mike, if you can respond to, but I meant this one is definitely it's part of the maintenance facility. There are no residents
uh or or houses within that area or that fall zone. So, uh, and because we're replacing one that was already pre-existing, it just seemed to be the perfect fit for the location. No alternative location was considered because of the location of the tower has
to do with our safety of our community. We commun radio communications for the security department as well as cameras and we also use it for our water. We sell irrigation water to the community. So it's also used as a receiving tower on that if it were to fall. I mean they're talking about they put I don't
know you can tell the base. I don't know what the base on this thing is, but it meets if it were to fall, it either fall in the garage, it would fall on a gas pump, or it would fall on a car in a parking lot. But in the area that it's in, it's employees do not work in that area very often. What about something
falling off it? I mean, that's a risk as well. >> Well, we we have things on there very well secured that and we check those things on a by-anual basis. We just have a couple little antennas on there. It's nothing heavy. If they were to fall, I could only see them falling in a radius of the tower, maybe five to 10 feet at
the most. >> Yeah. The concern I had is more with personnel in the area >> because you're going to have a lot of workers coming and going there. >> Yeah. In that area, there's not a lot of workers. It's at the very end. We just built a new garage facility and it's at the very south end of the garage facility and that's pretty much a
storage area. Okay. It is not a a functioning working area. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Yeah, I have one. I notic that on that current tower there's two uh instruments. Are they going to be the same instruments go up or you going to add
>> No, same. We do not plan on adding anything to the tower. >> Okay. Matter >> of fact, on in the shorter tower, we used to have a weather station up on the top of the tower for hurricane insurance purposes. Um we will not be reinstalling that. This is just going to be for the
water management company and cameras and security radio system. That's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes. I have a question that's more procedural and technical in that um this is in an R2A zone and as your
application acknowledges towers are not allowed in R2A zones. So my initial question is did you get what is the history of the existing tower? How did that get approved? And um yeah so that's my first question and then I have
follow-ups. the history, as far as I can tell, if you know anything about John's Island, I've been there 10 years. I have a maintenance supervisor who's been there 25 years. The tower's been there since he's been there. In the history of John's Island, I hate to say it. Um, they beg for forgiveness later. I don't
know if this tower was ever permitted to begin with. I don't think it was. And that's why we're at this point where we are today is because we wanted to move it as per the what we're asking for. Now, we figured out it wasn't permanent. Dr. Fred and you know said we need to
get this permitted and approved. >> Right. So in my short time on this board I have um I share your observation um and I I don't u my concern on this
one is I think a matter of authority. I if it if it wasn't permitted um there's no grandfathering in as far as I can see. There's no there's no legal basis that I understand for this board to
grant a variance because it's really a land use issue and not a variance issue. This isn't a matter of where you're putting the the tower. It's a matter of putting something in a zone that that is
specifically prohibited in that zone. And from my understanding that is a land use issue that this board does not have the authority to grant like an excuse for. So
I I don't I that's that's my understanding and if you have a response to that I I would be I understand why you are asking for this new tower but I'm not sure that we have the authority to grant your request. My response to that would be, and I, you
know, maybe it's a whole zoning and land use map revision that might be need. I'm not sure. I'm not going there. But, uh, you know, the administration complex, the maintenance facility that was just remodeled and expanded is in that same
zoning district as well and was just recently approved as a site plan. So, I I understand there's different uses between that maintenance facility and the tower, but it's not a a residential
use in that R2 zoning. So, it's kind of a a pre-existing precedent that's that's been set on, I guess, is where I'm going. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> Mr. you're going to get called in on this.
>> Sure. Um I think the first question is whether or not the variance itself is necessary given some of the definitions and what communication towers
are. So looking at that section 161.11 sighting of communication towers and antennas and if I may Mr. Chair board to ask questions of the applicant um Mr. Blum
Mr. Corpart uh this structure will not enable communications outside of the John's Island community. >> That's correct. There will be no placement of third-party vendors such as a mobile service provider like AT&T or Verizon. Is that correct? >> That's correct.
>> The reason why I asked that is under section subb compliance with applicable f federal regulations, communication towers and communication antennas must comply with all applicable FAA and FCC
regulations. I I don't and again I should ask for the record. Have you been required to submit any application to either the FCC or the FAA? >> No, we have not. >> And do you expect that you will be required to? No. >> Were you ever required to with the prior iteration of this tower?
>> No, we weren't. >> The the reason why I suggest that is that arguably this isn't a communications tower and that's actually reinforced when you look at the next subsection which is titled height of tower. um shall not exceed 50 feet in height including antenna when
freestanding. It's not based on the application. Um it then follows in the second sentence among the considerations of the town shall be the quality of cellular service, the collocation of service providers on one tower, camouflage
considerations, and projected future needs for reasonable coverage within the town. These considerations are are listed herein are meant to be illustrative only and all the provisions set forth and this section shall be considered and applied as the facts warrant. Um again I'm I'm not 100% sure
this falls within the definition of a communications tower. Now in an abundance of caution as you heard the applicant say they brought this to the building official. the building official. We don't have really any other of these in the entirety of
the town. Is that correct, Mr. Held? >> Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Okay. So, again, given the uniqueness of it, Mr. Chair, board, it was brought here. Um, I do think it's appropriate for this uh board to evaluate
particularly the fall radius as our chairman was just talking about and they certified because that is a question that makes that clear. Um, but as far as being outside and incompatible with the zoning district, I'm not sure it applies
because I'm not sure it's a use that is prohibited in that sense. Again, it's certainly not regulated by the FCC or the FAA. It's not providing communications to any third party vendors. And and again, going back to the history
of the town, Mr. chair, other members of the board. Um, this facility that's located just west of us here, uh, took many years. There was no provisions in the code of the town. Um, so a lot of this was designed
with that kind of idea in place. And again, that's why you see all the mono pole uh, idea, communication towers, where they would be allowed, what districts they would be allowed in. Um so I think uh appropriately um it's more
akin to a structure I think um again it continues to talk about whether or not as you continue through here whether this is going to be communication um what it would be doing for maintenance. I think it's a structure and for that reason as long as it would
meet that it would be appropriate. I think again this board is an advisory board in most capacities so it makes sense to bring things like this and depending on the purview. Um but I respect what you're saying and I think you're right. If it were applicable it would certainly fit right within that prohibition. I do agree with what you're
saying. >> Let me just ask one clarification. You said it, you know, it's a communication tower and the water company was going to be using it. Yes, we have we sell irrigation water to the entire community and we have automatic uh if you're
familiar with utilities, all the water meters in the ground are sent to us electronically so we can build a residence for the amount of water they use and there's a little antenna on that tower that receives that signal. >> Okay. Thank you.
Have you ever asked the FCC or any governmental organization if you need permission for um for this tower or to comply with anything? >> Not for the tower. We do have an FCC license for communication, just a
license to use a frequency, but it has nothing to do with the tower. It's just has a radio license that we can use a certain frequency designated by them to communicate with. >> Right. and you but you've never asked for asked whether this tower needs to
comply. So the fact that it hasn't been required to comply doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't one that would be required to comply because as you just said sometimes you ask for forgiveness rather than
permission >> the past 10 years fixing problems. >> Right. So I all I'm saying is I I'm not sure I understand um Mr. Sweeny's analysis of this, but I think I'm not I don't agree with Mr. Sweeny's
analysis because if it were true, then I would be able to put a tower on my property um for my own use. if if it if I have enough space and I probably would um that it wouldn't hit
anything. And I don't think that that I I don't think that that's true. I don't think >> actually it is true. >> It is true. And in fact, there's a section in here that specifically talks about being able um it specifically excludes anybody utilizing essentially
ham radio. It's it's if you'll just give me one second, it's very clear that it says that um it does not apply to individuals um that are utilizing essentially non-commercial
uh radios. Um please give me just one second and I'll find it. >> But but Mr. Sweeney, that doesn't mean you can put a tower up for that ham radio. Anybody can use a ham radio without a 45 ft tower, >> but you would be allowed to put up an
antenna that would reach 35, 40, even arguably up to 50 ft. I mean, it's >> I'm not anybody I'm not sure that that would um
>> that that would be allowed and that you would that this town would allow that for, you know, everybody have tower, you know, have >> Yes. Uh thank you. It was in the definitional section. Uh thank you. Um it is under 160.001
and it talks about communication. Um, and yes, if I may very quickly, a tower greater than 35 ft in height, including antenna that supports communication, transmission, or receiving equipment, the term communication tower, shall not include amateur radio operators
equipment licensed by the FCC. No tower shall exceed 50 ft in height, including antenna when freestanding or 40% over the building height when placed on top of buildings, except as provided in 161.17. So again, the the very clear directive here is that it would not apply in that
circumstance. I think most importantly is that going through this um the key to it is if it's being built um the fall radius and again there's been significant questions about that whether or not this board believes that that's
been met. Um quite frankly the monopole issue is not an issue anymore. We've resolved that. Um, so >> I I understand what you're saying, but my reading of that of how you just read it is if it is licensed,
it's exempt. But you're twisting it so that if it's not licensed, it doesn't have to be licensed and therefore it's exempt. So I just disagree with your interpretation of the regulations here. I don't believe we
have the authority to grant this. That's my That's my view, but I I'm not sure our discussion has changed my view on that. I mean, again, I understand why John's Island would like to upgrade its communications,
but the process and the the the town's codes and ordinances should, in my view, be followed um and and any, you know, more more closely by all
community residents. Okay. Just to be clear, we're not upgrading anything. We just want to move the tower 4T because of our new structure. It's going to have the same communications that we have on it. Matter of fact, it's going to have a little less cuz that one set when it was 60 ft tall, we had a weather station on
it. We're not putting that on there. Otherwise, the same radio receiver, the same receiver for the water meters, and the same receiver for the cameras. None of that's going to change. It's the exact same thing. We're not upgrading anything. or in fact you're upgrading from a lattice design to a monopole
design when they can get more robust structure. Um the the code clearly prefers that a new tower be installed on a roof. Was any consideration given to that? I think that would improve the uh concern with
the full radius. >> Uh not that I'm aware of. Yeah, we did not. >> Like I said, we we built the building first and then we want to move the tower because of the parameter of it to the building. And that's when we came out to
find from Mr. Hold that this tower was never permanent. So, we're trying to do the right thing in using this and getting it on paper, getting it the right thing so that we can just move it. It was never considered to put it on the building. And I don't know if our building structure, I'm not an architect
or an engineer of any kind, could handle a a tower up there. It would take basically it would take a 15t section off of the tower, >> but we'd still be looking at the same height. >> Same height. >> And where the tower is going to be located, it would be no less of a danger
to a staff. >> Well, it might be more danger to staff because now it's gonna fall over going in and out of the garage. Under the code, if it was mounted on a roof, it has to be a minimum 10 feet from the edge of the roof. So, right there, you eliminate 10 foot uh full radius
exposure. Okay. Well, if we put on the peak of the roof and if it was fall to the garage side of the roof and it's 40, you know, whatever tall, it's still going to fall into the more of the work area than it would currently. Not, >> right? Any other questions from the board? Any
comments or questions from the public? Please step up. Please tell us your name and who you represent. My name is Kim Burton. I live at 106 Hidden Oak Drive. Um, and I am the president of a board at Bermuda Bay.
This enhanced maintenance facility is directly adjacent to the main entrance to our Oceanside properties. Um it was sold initially as an administrative building. It's far from that. There is so much truck traffic work on equipment
that's going on on a daily basis. It makes it difficult for us to exit that side of our property and has become a little bit of a problem when our residents are coming across A1A to use our beach facilities whether
walking or by bicycle. And I'm concerned that any tower that might be in that area could be a fall risk to those people during a storm. And you never know where things are going to end up. We just recently had the tornado down
the street and who knows where something like this could end up. Um the building enlargement that was approved initially removed a lot of the foliage that was there. And while things have been planted, they're sporadic and they would
never totally mask that facility from our entrance despite our wall. And um the tower is today is really an eyesore and even a monopole tower would be completely visible to our residents. Um
we found no other tower anywhere in Indian River Shore similar to this, whether it's a monopole or a lattice tower. In fact, when the tow this cell tower here went through an extensive discussion to get that approved, the tower that was on the emergency services
building was removed as a result of that and alternate methods for providing that transmission were um resolved. And I don't see why John couldn't look at some of those other alternatives.
Um obviously the existing tower was issued without a permit and you know any further construction to that should have the proper permit process to go along with it. But the
tower is an eyesore. It's visible. The one that's there now is totally visible on A1A but even a monopole would be visible to all of our residents. And our residents feel that our property is being de disvalued
by this commercial feeling uh function that's happening at this building that we thought was never intended. It was supposed to be an administrative building. There are trucks and cars there parked all the time. Equipment being worked on all the
time. And frankly, we feel that in R2A zone, which is similar to our property, that no tower should be allowed. Thank you. Thank you. >> I'm Todd Thompson. I'm the general contractor that John's Island had asked
to come help out with the tower and pull the permit for the tower and the relocation of it. And I've been working in John's Island on a lot of their security stuff since I was 16 years old. And Star Communications, Michael Gerart, was the original contractor that put the
tower up over 30 years ago. Now, in 30 years, the base had rusted out and it had been replaced. He's pretty sure in my speakings with him that it was permitted back when it was put in originally, but who's going to find the archive files 30 years ago? He's been digging around trying to find
his. He's long since sold the company and retired. He actually sold the company to me, and I don't have any of his old documents. So, he he's thinking that the tower was permitted. So the relocation of the
tower of a permitted tower is possibly here in effect, but we don't have the documentation. We can't find microfilm to prove it. That being said, the FCC has been um checked to make sure that the tower did not file within a permit
for their guidelines and it is exempt from the tower manufacturers rep who reaches out and does all the homework before they give us the quote for the towers. So that's been cleared. the I guess the other concern you're having
regarding the fall radius. Fall radius is something to consider when there's a storm, right? And if there's a storm that's going to create an issue with the fall radius of this tower, there's not going to be any personnel around the tower. There's not going to be anybody out there watching the tower come down on their head
because they're going to be running from the storm. That's just my observation. I've been around these towers my entire life. I've climbed to the top of them, not willingly, but as duty called, and I've sat there and swayed on a 70ft
tower with no guidewires, and it hasn't fallen. But in the event of a storm, hurricane, 30 years of history goes by and we've had hurricanes, one every 3, four years maybe. We just had a tornado that blew here with at least 150 mph
gust winds that blew through John's Island. Tower still stayed in place. So, just kind of maybe a little relief on your worries with the fall radius. >> Is there any reason the tower can't be located elsewhere within John's Island?
>> Well, I don't know. That would kind of be a question for you guys. If you have a specific area and maybe the bandwidth of the antenna, the radios that you use for the water system. >> Yeah. Um, we we don't have any other property we
can put it on. We don't own any other property within John's Island to put that on. We own the building there and and where One Turtle Beach Road is and we have our gates, but I'm sure if we want to put a tower on
top of one of our gates, I'm sure the community wouldn't like that either because now you're really out in the forefront. The tower is guarded from A1A with foliage. Yes, we removed the landscaping from Bermuda Bay. We put all new landscaping in. Yes, it's going to take a few couple years for that
landscaping to come in and block their view again. But we really don't have any other spot. We don't own any other property that we could put that tower on. >> There is a U service area up towards the uh clubhouse. >> That is the club property. Club property
and John's on property are two separate entities. >> We have nothing to do with one another. >> Okay. So we don't own that's they own all their own. We own ours and we just basically own that area and where the gates are. >> Wouldn't would
I mean the is the the parking garage that was recently approved by the council. That is that club property? >> Yes, that is club property.
So when that was before us, there um there seemed to be an awful lot of um communication and cooperation between the two entities. Is is there since that
building is already pretty tall, has there been any consideration of putting the the the antenna portion on the top of the the the the parking garage, which also seems fairly central to everywhere
where you need to to to communicate. >> No, no consideration was given. And just to be clear, Jipua or John's Island on Property Station was not involved at all in that garage process. That was totally the club. It was their property and we
they we weren't alls we were told is they're building a parking garage and you all approved it and that's all we were told. We weren't even not even in the discussions with that garage. That was all John's Island club. I mean we have our president wrote a letter. He had no objection to the
garage based on the height. That was the only thing we got involved in. But other than that, we had nothing to do with building it. antennas and it's a prefab garage. I don't know how easy it would be to put an antenna on that or not. I don't know. We've not asked. There would be a lot of structural components needed
to be able to attach an antenna that sways into something on the foundation like that. >> I'm sorry, sir. Can you speak into there? >> Some structural issues. I'm not a structural engineer, but I've been in the business for 30 years, and there'd be some structural issues that the garage would have to be beefed up in order to handle the tower being attached
to it. That's why it's embedded in, you know, a cement foundation for its support and it's weighted for x amount of square footage of cement based on the height of the tower to support the swaying and the issues of what may come down the road with a storm.
>> Well, right. But the tower wouldn't be put on the garage. It's the the antenna that's on top of the tower is I I I my understanding the important part of the tower and you need to raise it above everything for the communication. So, the antenna part just needs to be high
enough. Um, doesn't have to have the tower on top of the garage. It just needs to have the antenna on top of like a high >> part of our infrastructure, too, that it's it's easy to say, "Let's move a tower a mile down the road." But the way we have several communication devices
around the property that are all aimed and set to shoot at that corner of our one Turtle Beach Road, there'd be a lot of infrastructure changes that would have to be put in place. Not saying it can't be done. I mean, say put in place and we would have to get permission from
the club to do that. And we try to, believe it or not, we try to anything they do, we don't want to do anything on their property and we don't want them doing anything on our property because we fought them. Just a little point of reference how we fight the club. They wanted to buy it. When we talked about renovating our building,
they wanted to buy it and put pickle ball courts there. And we told them, "No, we're just going to renovate our building and make it bigger." And just to be clear, I complain about all the new work that's going on by the garages. We've had our maintenance garage go on there for 50
years. They've been doing work on vehicles, construction, everything around that area. Just because we built a new, more efficient garage, it's the same work that's been going on for over 50 years. >> Can I ask a question? The you're going
to have a communication device on top of the tower mono monopole. What is what is the uh radius of of that? Is it for local or does it go across all of JI? >> It goes all across JI bounces. We have several little antennas around the
property that you can't see. They're they're smaller, but it pretty much shoots out over the radius of John L. >> So, it's a mesh technology where you have, you know, like the the uh the mother here and then a bunch of ones and they all communicate. >> Correct.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not a technician on that, but to the best of my knowledge, that's the way I understand it works. >> Any other questions or comments from the board? >> Any other comments from the public? >> Do I have a motion?
My motion would be to deny this request for a variance in on procedural grounds and that that the request is one that needs to be um more directed toward land use issues.
Any second? Any other motion? And may I pass the gavvel? >> Yes. >> I pass the gavl and I make a motion to deny the application for the variance. Any second? >> I second that motion. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> All opposed. >> We're going to need a roll call vote. I can't tell. Motion to deny the request for variance which was made by uh Mr. Carbon was seconded by M. Bowman. Can I have a vote
please? Mr. Crawford. >> Um I guess I'll deny. >> Yeah. Yeah, let's be clear what you're are you voting in favor of the motion or not? >> No, I'm not in favor I'm I'm I'm voting in favor of the motion as uh described
by >> you're voting in favor to deny the request for variance. >> Yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Carbon. >> Miss Bowman, >> Miss Anderson, >> let the record show the motion passes unanimously. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for
clarifying that. Thank you. >> For the applicant's benefit, you should know that as Mr. Sweeney mentioned earlier this board's authority is to not finally make our recommendation to the council next
hearing you can present again you may not >> and in light of that thank you Mr. Carbon that's correct so in light of that this would be likely going and I'll defer to Mr. Harping to the next meeting uh this month.
>> Yes, that's the 28th uh May 28th. This will be presented to town council. Um it'll be on um agenda for discussion. Uh so we'll see it on May 28th uh the town council meeting 9:00 a.m. All right. Um
>> uh Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Um we uh we had an item come up if I just give you very brief background. Um, let me get to the end first. I'm going to be asking to see if there uh is a quorum on May 27th for a meeting of this body sitting as the local planning
agency, the LPA, for purposes of uh making a review and recommendation to town council who will be meeting the following day on the 28th. Um, and I'm sorry, and that's a Wednesday or Tuesday, but nonetheless, it's we're
looking at the 27th. Um brief background, the town had previously gone through the process of um our uh evaluation and appraisal uh report and review for our comprehensive plan. Uh we were engaged in that last
year. However, the legislature uh passed Senate Bill 180. part of Senate Bill 180 had a lot of directives to counties and municipalities like ours uh relative to their comprehensive plans, land
planning, land development, and so on. Uh as a result though, we had uh a an updated comprehensive plan uh prepared and ready to go. uh we had to pull that back and um re-evaluate it and look at the language again in light of Senate
Bill 180. We've done that and the process is that the local planning agency, this this group sitting as the LPA, reviews the comprehensive plan changes and uh evaluates it and makes recommendations to the town council.
That being said, the uh the changes are as a result of both our uh periodic review through our evaluation and appraisal report uh review of our comprehensive plan because laws change every year and more
specifically as to Senate Bill 180 because it was very direct as to the types of things that we had to make sure uh we weren't doing uh that were either burdensome or restrictive or so on. So that's a long way of saying we're trying to get a quorum uh because we have uh
time frames and those time frames were not uh items related to the town but they were related to the legislature and you know the changes and the reviews that we have to undergo for the comprehensive plans. So, what I'd like to do is ask if uh we would have a
quorum for an LPA meeting on May 27th uh for purposes of reviewing the draft changes to the comprehensive plan. Uh we could we'll get that out to you this week. Uh it's not
it's not substantive. uh and you'll see there's a lot more um it looks a little more intimidating because it's in legislative format than it actually is in terms of the changes. There's nothing of substance. If anything, the changes relate to, I think the best
way I can put it is a softening of language in the comprehensive plan or a removal of certain directives that were not subject to uh review or oversight or legislation by the municipality as a
result of what Senate Bill 180 said. It removed a lot. Senate Bill 180 removed a lot of um uh restrictive language that might otherwise be in the comprehensive plans. So when we send it out to you and we can we that could even go out this afternoon or you know tomorrow um you'll
see that it's it's pretty straightforward and we're not looking to do anything um uh nuanced or uh complex in terms of fundamental changes in the town's comprehensive plan. Uh, frankly, our goal is to be statutoily compliant
with the provisions of 180, which is which is why we're here. Um, so with that, uh, my question is whether or not, um, there would could be a, uh, a quorum, uh, or at least, you know, three of the people that we have here now on the 27th for a meeting of the local
planning agency. >> Speaking for myself, Jim, unfortunately, I won't be >> and I won't either. >> Okay. I I will be here. >> Well, we'll we'll find out if uh Mr. Hutmaker is running. Um >> we know he's running somewhere. Janice,
>> um he did confirm that he was available >> was available on the 27th. Okay. We'll we'll firm all that up within a day or two. We'll get out uh an agenda and an agenda item and a staff report and and all the information. We'll send that to everyone for their review. And as always, if you know you have comments, you can email me directly. But I very
much appreciate those that are that are able to be here and obviously understand this is a last minute thing and um you know those that have plans otherwise we're you know we're appreciative of that as well. Um and uh Pete, anything else on that? >> All I wanted to add is um for any individual that is not going to be here
um in reviewing it, if you do have comments, red lines, suggestions, edits, please just directly send them to Mr. Harper. That way they don't go back to the group and it doesn't foster communication. What would happen is those comments will be presented along with whoever's here physically. I know
it's hard to digest. Um but we don't want to have the open door back and forth. These are my comments and somebody says those are great comments. So that would be only my recommendation. Thank you. >> I have one question. Um some time ago, this board voted to recommend to the
town council that would restrict the application for variance that notice be required to be given to adjacent properties and has anything along those lines been incorporated into the new code?
>> That that's not from a staff perspective um uh through discussions. I've not been directed by council to do so um or to prepare something like that. Certainly as part of these minutes um you know council gets the minutes and we will we
can you know certainly present that and I know that it was a bit of an anomaly over time because the only essentially neighbor notification was exclusively as to docs which are very very limited you know in town as we know. So, uh, that's something that, uh,
we'll make sure we make note of and I'll I'll address because we do have some, you know, ordinance things that we always look to tighten up over the, you know, over the course of the year. >> Thank you. >> Any other
uh I, uh, I have nothing else. Uh, I'll defer to, uh, Mr. Sweeney or others. >> Just had a question. Um with respect to there's a apparently a town meeting um a workshop coming up on the pickup
truck ordinance. Is that going to be something that comes before this board um for consideration? >> In brief, I don't know. The meeting itself is a result of uh staff and
others getting inquiries about uh about the current status of the ordinance. So as a result, we schedule a meeting to basically get input in a very broad sense from everyone. Uh the idea is that uh we'll uh publish or notify everybody,
you know, at the meeting and otherwise. This is what the town ordinance currently um requires or or outlines. uh thereafter we'll ask for input if there are any one that has any suggested changes about that based on whatever factors they want to suggest and then at
that point in time we'll take all that input uh and bring it to the uh town council at the May 28th meeting because our meeting community meeting I believe is the 19th uh so at the 28th we will report to the town council that meeting
itself since it's going to be held here uh will have minutes it'll be recorded council will be able to the, you know, all of the input. So, we will really just be delivering uh that information to the council uh for their determination. It'll be up to them at May to give staff
direction one way or the other. Do something, do nothing. Uh you do something within these parameters or or otherwise. So, that's um so that's sort of the process as it were relative to that issue. That's all I have.
Are there any comments from the public? >> So, I just have a question based on your recommendation before we go down a rabbit hole and spend all this money and design the tower possibly on the building. Still going to be a fall radius, still
going to be this, still going to be that. Is this group open to us doing that? because it's still in the R2A or RA2 zone. It's still in a residential area. I don't want to spend a whole bunch of money with engineers and all this if you guys
are going to say, "Oh, no. It's still in a residential area." Sorry. question and it's a difficult question to answer >> just as it is a difficult exercise for you to go through because we don't know exactly what you're proposing and we need something at least a preliminary uh
>> well basically I'm just saying the big argument I heard here was the RA2 zone >> it's in a residential don't want the tower there even though Mr. Sereni pointed out in the town ordinances it's permitted and as she pointed out it we just don't think that should happen. She doesn't agree with the town ordinance.
My question is I'm literally talking about moving the tower 15 ft over onto the roof of the maintenance building in the same area and everything I've heard from here. I don't want to go down that path if it's just going to come back and say, "Oh no, you're still in the residential area. We're not going to approve it."
>> Let me suggest to you and this is only a suggestion. It's not an official recommendation or anything, but >> u you're going to go through the exercise with the town council. I I imagine >> correct >> and and after that I think you have to make a decision.
>> Sure. I'm just trying to work with you all. I want to make sure you know we're just trying to bring everything to compliance and >> and we're we're not looking to be difficult or uncooperative either, but there is a code. It's there for a reason. And my my biggest concern, as I
expressed, I think, is the safety of personnel in the area. Yes. >> And it's a working area. There's going to be a lot of people running around, and uh the the the code is there, I think, in large part to protect those people. >> Okay. That's >> And that's uh if you were to move the
tower onto the roof, which I believe is what the code calls for in the first instance, uh it would certainly concern. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> And I would I would like to clarify something. Um because you're I understand you're disappointed that your
variance was declined, but I think you mischaracterized um both what Mr. Sweeney said and my position. Um Mr. Sweeney did not give a definitive legal opinion about what
the variance said. has he said a number of times he's not sure whether it applies or it would require um uh a different zoning or not. It's not Mr. Sweeny's burden. It is the applicant's
burden to show that the variance is um allowed and that we have the authority to grant it. My view is that I I don't believe we have the authority to grant this variance. Um I I empathize with
your need for the for the tower, but I um the purpose of of my duty on this board is to apply the rules and that's how I see it. And what I I haven't received any information from the applicant that convinces me otherwise.
So, um >> that's fine. I said you have to do your due diligence. I respect that. >> Right. So, um I don't you said I disagree with the town ordinance. That is not correct actually. Um I'm enforcing the town ordinance as
far as I'm concerned. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We are joined.