DRAFT

1 PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION 2 PUBLIC HEARING HELD 3 OCTOBER 13, 2015 4 5 The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation 6 Commission was called to order by Frank Severino , at 9:00 a.m., in the County Council 7 Meeting of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana 8 Avenue, DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members answered present, to wit: 9 10 FRANK SEVERINO 11 JEFF GOVE 12 WANDA VAN DAM 13 JEFFREY BENDER 14 JAY YOUNG 15 RONNIE MILLS 16 JOSEPH ALLEVA 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 SHANNON ELLER, Assistant County Attorney 20 SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager 21 BILL GARDNER, ASLA, Activity Project Manager 22 SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, PLANNER III 23 SARA PAYNE, Staff Assistant II 24 25 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26 27 • August 11, 2015 28 • September 8, 2015 29 30 Member Gove moved to APPROVE the August 11, 2015 and September 8, 2015 31 minutes. Member Van Dam seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 32 (7:0). 33 34 Shannon Eller, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. 35 36 Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 37 38 Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission 39 Board were asked to please disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte 40 communications that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is 41 to be taken on any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any 42 communication as listed below. 43 44 Chair Severino and Members Bender and Mills spoke with Ms. Joey Alexander 45 regarding cases S-15-061 and V-15-062. 46 Member Mills spoke with Mr. Bob Hallett, Skydive DeLand, regarding cases S-15-061 47 and V-15-062. 48 49

Page 1 of 13 DRAFT

1 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 2 3 V-15-060 – Application of Kim C. Booker, attorney for Scott Plumlee, owner, requesting 4 a variance to maximum fence height on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned 5 property. The property is located at 1706 Old Daytona Road, DeLand, + 13,750 square 6 feet; 6035-02-04-0010. 7 8 Scott Ashley, Senior Planning Manager, explained that Attorney Booker was required to 9 be in south Florida for a Federal Court appearance and had requested a 30-day 10 continuance for this case. Mr. Ashley stated that the staff had no objection to the 11 request. 12 13 Chair Severino asked Mr. Edwin Hill to step forward. He then explained to Mr. Hill that 14 the case would be heard at the November 10, 2015 and asked if he would be present to 15 speak at that time. Mr. Hill acknowledged he understood and he would be present. 16 17 Member Young moved to GRANT a 30-day continuance to the applicant to be 18 heard at the November 10, 2015 PLDRC hearing. 19 20 Member Mills seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0) 21 22 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS 23 24 V-15-033 – Application of William Stanley Shaddix, agent for William S. and Margaret 25 M. Shaddix, Trustees, owners, requesting a variance to the waterfront yard from the 26 previously granted variance of 12 feet to 10 feet for an addition (screened ) to a 27 single-family residence on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-5) zoned property. The 28 property is located at 1075 Lemon Bluff Road, Osteen; + 6,125 square feet; 9228-02- 29 00-0010. 30 31 Shannon Eller, Assistant County Attorney, explained that this case was a rehearing only 32 for the commission to consider a reduction from the previously granted variance 33 approval from 12 feet to 10 feet. She stated that any evidence submitted and testimony 34 for consideration should be limited to the request for the two foot reduction. She further 35 stated that all other evidence previously submitted was a part of the original case 36 record, and any other issues that had already been ruled on would not be appropriate 37 for consideration by the commission. 38 39 Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, gave the staff report. 40 41 Member Mills asked for clarification as it related to setback requirements for a detached 42 structure. 43 44 Mr. Ashley stated that the setback requirement for a detached structure was five feet. 45 46 William Stanley Shaddix, agent for William S. and Margaret M. Shaddix, Trustees, 47 owners, 2130 Old Daytona Road, Port Orange, Florida. Mr. Shaddix stated the 48 screened porch was designed to include a limb from an existing tree to run through the 49 room. He explained that at the original case hearing he had asked for a 10-foot setback

Page 2 of 13 DRAFT

1 and compromised for the approved 12-foot setback because he knew it would give him 2 the desired square footage for the addition. After the hearing, he took measurements of 3 the tree and discovered the agreed-upon variance of 12 feet would cause him to either 4 cut the branch to preserve the square footage of the room or decrease the square 5 footage to preserve the limb. Mr. Shaddix stated he was asking the commission to 6 consider a 9-foot rather than a 10-foot setback so the structure could accommodate the 7 branch and have an 18-inch on the that was most exposed to the 8 elements of the weather. 9 10 Member Mills asked if the request was for a nine- or ten-foot setback. 11 12 Mr. Shaddix stated he was requesting a nine-foot setback, which was stated in the letter 13 submitted as part of the rehearing package. He stated a 10-foot setback would be 14 acceptable but a 9-foot setback would be preferred. 15 16 There being no public participation, the was opened for commission discussion. 17 18 Member Gove inquired if there was a request for a 10-foot setback advertised. 19 20 Mr. Ashley and staff confirmed that the case was advertised with no reference to the 21 specific square footage for the new setback. He stated that since a request for a 10- 22 foot setback was not advertised, it would be to the discretion of the commission to grant 23 a request for a 9-foot setback. 24 25 Members Mills, Van Dam, Gove and Alleva stated they supported granting a nine-foot 26 setback. Member Gove further stated at the original case hearing there was quite a bit 27 of uncertainty as to what setback would work to preserve the limb. He also said he 28 does not see any adverse impact to the adjacent property owners. Member Alleva 29 concurred. 30 31 Chair Severino agreed it would be preferable to save the branch but the applicant has 32 the option to reduce the square footage of the structure to do that. He stated he is not 33 in support of extending deeper setbacks with the facts that have been presented. 34 35 Discussion ensued related to the setback requirements for an attached and detached 36 structure. 37 38 Chair Severino asked if there was no further discussion to move forward with a motion. 39 40 Member Mills moved to APPROVE variance case V-15-033 rehearing for a 41 variance to the waterfront yard from the previously granted 12 feet to 10 9 feet for 42 an addition (screened porch) to a single-family residence on Urban Single-Family 43 Residential (R-5) zoned property, subject to the following conditions: 44 45 1. The property owners or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all 46 required permits and inspections for the property improvements 47 proposed with this variance; and 48 49 2. The screened porch shall not exceed 15 feet in height; and

Page 3 of 13 DRAFT

1 2 3. The screened porch shall not exceed a maximum width of 26 feet. 3 4 Member Alleva seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED (5:2) Chair Severino and 5 Member Young OPPOSED. 6 7 V-15-045 – Application of Linda M. Lavorando, owner, requesting variances to minimum 8 yard requirements for an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory structures, 9 and a variance to maximum fence height on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) 10 zoned property. The property is located at 2594 East Lake Drive, DeLand; + 10,163 11 square feet; 7001-03-43-0010. 12 13 Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, gave the staff report. Mr. Ashley pointed 14 out that a small pond was not notated on the survey (staff report page 14 of 23) near the 15 concrete pad, which limits where accessory structures could be relocated in an effort to 16 comply with setback requirements. 17 18 Chair Severino asked for further comment why staff did not support Variance 8. 19 20 Mr. Ashley stated that in 1989, a 16-foot addition was made to the main structure which 21 was built in the 1970’s. He further explained that even if the addition did not exist, a 22 variance would still be necessary because the original dwelling encroaches on the 23 minimum required setbacks. 24 25 Member Van Dam asked if the commission could act on anything that was in the public 26 right-of-way. 27 28 Shannon Eller, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the structure located in 29 the public right–of-way must be removed, a condition made by staff (staff report page 11 30 of 23). 31 32 Mr. Ashley further explained with the elimination of the carport structure, the lot 33 coverage issue would be satisfied and Variance 11 would no longer be necessary. 34 35 Member Van Dam inquired if the canopy storage shelter addressed in Variance 5 was 36 reduced in size, would that put the structure in an allowable setback. 37 38 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. 39 40 Linda Lavoranda, 2594 East Lake Drive, DeLand. Ms. Lavoranda agreed to remove the 41 carport addressed in Variance 1. She stated that when the metal was installed, 42 lot coverage was not explained to her. She said she would comply with what the 43 commission decided. 44 45 Member Van Dam inquired if the 10-foot by 20-foot canopy storage shelter could be 46 reduced in size and still be useful as a carport. 47 48 Ms. Lavorando stated her vehicle was 16-foot long and if the canopy storage shelter 49 were reduced, it would not cover the entire vehicle.

Page 4 of 13 DRAFT

1 2 Chair Severino asked the applicant which structures could be eliminated or relocated. 3 4 Ms. Lavorando stated that she would like the metal garage and the canopy storage 5 shelter to remain, the pool could be relocated, the gazebo canopy could be either 6 relocated or removed and the carport in the front of the could be eliminated. 7 8 Chair Severino inquired if the applicant was willing to make the aforementioned 9 adjustments, would that eliminate the variance for maximum coverage. 10 11 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. He further explained if the items addressed in 12 Variance 6 and 7 were relocated to meet setbacks and the carport addressed in 13 Variance 1 were eliminated, that would be a good compromise. He said that all work 14 would require after-the-fact permits. 15 16 Member Mills asked to clarify if the applicant would agree to eliminate the structure 17 addressed in Variance 1 and relocate the structures addressed in Variance 6 and 7. 18 19 Ms. Lavorando agreed with the recommendations. 20 21 Member Mills asked to clarify if staff was in agreement. 22 23 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. 24 25 Chair Severino asked if the staff would support Variances 2 and 3. 26 27 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. He then stated that staff could support Variance 28 4. 29 30 There being no public participation, the floor was opened for commission discussion. 31 32 Member Young asked to confirm that Variances 1, 6, 7 and 11 would be eliminated if 33 the applicant removed the carport in the front of the and relocated the pool and 34 gazebo patio canopy. 35 36 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. 37 38 Chair Severino asked to clarify if there would be a condition for after-the-fact building 39 permits for structures that require a permit. 40 41 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. He stated all the structures would need building 42 permits and inspections. He then said that staff recommended Condition 1 could 43 include language that would dictate that Variance 6 (above-ground ) and 44 Variance 7 (gazebo patio canopy) obtain permits and meet required setbacks. He then 45 said that Condition 2 eliminated Variance 11 and Condition 3 ensured no other 46 structures would be permitted unless an existing structure were removed. 47 48 Chair Severino asked if there was no further discussion to move forward with a motion. 49

Page 5 of 13 DRAFT

1 Member Mills moved to DENY variance case V-15-045 variances to minimum yard 2 requirements for an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory structures, 3 and a variance to maximum fence height on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) 4 zoned property as follows: 5 6 Variance 1: A variance for a north (East Lake Drive) from the required 7 25 feet to 4.00 feet for an existing accessory structure (detached carport); and 8 9 Variance 6: A variance for a west front yard (West Parkway) from the required 25 10 feet to 7.27 feet for an existing accessory structure (above-ground swimming 11 pool); and 12 13 Variance 7: A variance for a west front yard (West Parkway) from the required 25 14 feet to 13.64 feet for an existing accessory structure (gazebo patio canopy) ; and 15 16 Variance 11: A variance to section 72-277(1)(d) to allow the cumulative area of all 17 accessory and structures to exceed the maximum allowed 1,046 square 18 feet to 1,240 square feet 19 20 Member Young seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 21 22 Member Young moved to APPROVE variance case V-15-045 variances to 23 minimum yard requirements for an existing single-family dwelling and for 24 accessory structures, and a variance to maximum fence height on Urban Single- 25 Family Residential (R-4) zoned property, with modified staff conditions, as follows 26 27 Variance 2: A variance for an east side yard from the required five feet to 3.20 28 feet for an existing accessory structure (canopy storage shelter); and 29 30 Variance 3: Variance for an east side yard from the allowable eight feet to 5.82 31 feet for an existing accessory structure (metal garage); and 32 33 Variance 4: Variance for a south side yard from the allowable 12 feet to 5.32 feet 34 for an existing accessory structure (metal garage); and 35 36 Variance 5: Variance for a west front yard (West Parkway) from the required 25 37 feet to 18.92 feet for an existing accessory structure (canopy storage shelter); 38 and 39 40 Variance 8: A variance to the west front yard (West Parkway) from the required 41 25 feet to 11.33 feet for an addition (finished enclosed porch) to a single-family 42 residence 43 44 Variance 9: A variance to the west front yard (West Parkway) from the required 45 25 feet to 13.26 feet for an existing single-family residence; and 46 47 Variance 10: A variance to the front yard (East Lake Drive) from the required 25 48 feet to 24.60 feet for an existing single-family dwelling on Urban Single-Family 49 Residential (R-4) zoned property, subject to the following modified conditions:

Page 6 of 13 DRAFT

1 2 1. The variances are limited to the original single-family dwelling as depicted 3 on the variance site plan revised on August 24, 2015, prepared by Efird 4 Surveying Group, Inc. The dwelling shall not be enlarged, increased, or 5 extended further to encroach or occupy any greater area of the property 6 without approval of a separate variance. 7 8 2. The property owner or authorized agents shall complete all required 9 building permits and inspections for the existing metal garage 10 (20150310021), the existing finished enclosed porch (20150310025) and 11 obtain building permits and inspections for the accessory structures 12 associated with Variance 2 (canopy storage shelter), Variance 5 (canopy 13 storage shelter), Variance 6 (above-ground swimming pool) and Variance 7 14 (gazebo patio canopy). Accessory structures associated with Variance 6 15 (above-ground swimming pool) and Variance 7 (gazebo patio canopy shall 16 comply with required setbacks. 17 18 3. The applicant be required to remove the carport (Variance 1) to satisfy 19 compliance to section 72-277(1) (d) whereas the cumulative area of all 20 remaining accessory structures will be at 49.70 percent. 21 22 4. No additional accessory structure shall be permitted unless a 23 corresponding existing sized accessory structure is removed to comply 24 with section 72-277(1) (d). 25 26 Variance 12: A variance to section 72-282(2) to maximum permitted fence height 27 in a front yard from four (4) feet to six (6) feet on Urban Single-Family Residential 28 (R-4) zoned property. 29 30 Member Van Dam seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (7:0). 31 32 S-15-061 – Application of Towers represented by Jacobs Engineering Group, 33 Inc., agent for Ann Marie Nordman, owner, requesting a special exception for a 34 communication tower exceeding 70 feet in height and a waiver to separation 35 requirements on Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned property. 36 37 Chair Severino requested that variance case V-15-062 be read into the record. Because 38 of interlinking requirements and conditions, evidence heard will be applied to both 39 cases. 40 41 V-15-062 - Application of Skyway Towers represented by Jacobs Engineering Group, 42 Inc., agent for Ann Marie Nordman, owner, requesting a variance to setbacks and 43 separations for a proposed communication tower exceeding 70 feet in height on 44 Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned property. 45 46 Scott Ashley, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report for Special Exception 47 Case S-15-061. He first explained the applicant’s request for the special exception as 48 related to improved mobile, residential and commercial building coverage (staff report 49 pages 33 and 34 of 44). He stated that the applicant had received from the FAA

Page 7 of 13 DRAFT

1 (Federal Aviation Administration) a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation letter 2 (staff report page 26 of 44). He then stated the applicant provided a letter from their 3 client, Verizon, explaining in detail the need for the height of the tower (staff report page 4 31 of 44). He then explained the radius coverage and the aesthetic and functional 5 differences between the proposed tower and the approved tower site at SR-15A in 6 Glenwood, which would be utilized by the same client. Mr. Ashley said the applicant 7 had shifted the position of the proposed tower in order to minimize the number of 8 waivers required by code. Staff recommends the commission forward to the county 9 council for action with a recommendation of approval, subject to conditions. 10 11 Mr. Ashley presented the staff report for Variance Case V-15-062. He explained that 12 the applicant was making an effort to meet cellular service needs and had found a site 13 that would satisfy the primary targeted area. He said the applicant has done what could 14 be done to meet the minimum variance necessary to locate a tower. However staff 15 could not recommend the variance, but provided three recommended conditions if the 16 commission found the applicant had met the criteria. 17 18 Chair Severino called on Ms. Eller to explain the interdependencies of the cases. 19 20 Shannon Eller, Assistant County Attorney, explained with companion cases, the special 21 exception was usually heard first because it was specific to a particular use, and then 22 the variance was heard addressing a specific detailed condition. The special exception 23 being heard contains specific waivers dependent upon a location that would have to be 24 granted by the variance. Thus, the distances considered in the special exception for the 25 waivers had been calculated based on the proposed location, and the location of the 26 proposed tower could only move forward if the variance was granted. The 27 recommendation by counsel is to hear all testimony and evidence to evaluate the 28 criteria for both applications and then move forward on the variance first. This action 29 would then guide whether consideration could be made to the locations that were 30 identified as part of the waivers of the special exception. 31 32 Member Gove asked to confirm that hearing the cases in the order suggested by 33 counsel was why the approval of the variance was not made a condition of the special 34 exception. 35 36 Ms. Eller answered in the affirmative. 37 38 Member Gove inquired if the agricultural use of the proposed property had been 39 abandoned. 40 41 Mr. Ashley answered in the affirmative. 42 43 Aaron Frampton, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. representing Skyway Towers, 44 applicant, 5333 Bells Ferry Road, Acworth, Georgia. Mr. Frampton stated it was not the 45 desire of the applicant to light the tower. He then said that as part of the FAA 46 evaluation, was not required and it was his experience that surrounding 47 residences prefer not to see a lighted tower. He asked to exclude the condition 48 requiring the proposed tower to be lighted. 49

Page 8 of 13 DRAFT

1 Member Mills asked for further explanation of the coverage radius for the proposed 2 tower and the approved tower located on SR 15-A. 3 4 Mr. Frampton stated that the radius would be 1.5 miles if the commission granted the 5 monopole. He then explained the issues that affect coverage, which included elevation, 6 tower height, and obstructions. 7 8 Mr. Ashley referred to the letter provided by Verizon (staff report pages 35-36 of 44) that 9 addressed coverage of the approved St. Johns Lodge tower site located on SR 15-A. 10 He then stated the tower has not been built yet. 11 12 Member Mills inquired if the St. Johns Lodge tower were modified to reach further out, 13 would there be a need for the proposed tower. 14 15 Mr. Frampton could not affirm there would be an impact on the reach and further stated 16 it may deter other carriers from locating to the tower. 17 18 Member Mills inquired if the skydive business and the ultralight group located at the 19 DeLand airport, which both fly at lower elevations, was taken into consideration. 20 21 Mr. Frampton reiterated that the FAA granted a no hazard letter and the applicant had 22 made every effort at their disposal to address the FAA and aircraft concerns. He then 23 stated as part of the application all area airports had been notified and proof of this due 24 process had been provided to staff. 25 26 Member Mills stated he was told, through his ex parte communication with Mr. Bob 27 Hallett, owner of Skydive DeLand, that he did not know about the proposed tower. 28 Member Mills further stated that he had concerns that there were unique flight patterns 29 that the FAA would not normally consider. 30 31 Mr. Ashley addressed the recommended condition for lighting. He confirmed that the 32 FAA does not require lighting if a tower is under 200 feet. The staff condition for the 33 tower to be lit was because of helicopter operations conducted by the Volusia County 34 Sheriff’s Office, Medivac, and mosquito control. He further stated that it has been a 35 consistent request by the County of Volusia. 36 37 Member Van Dam asked to refer to page 37 of 44 in the special exception staff report. 38 She asked for further explanation if only one carrier could be housed by a flagpole 39 communications tower and why towers located within a 1.5 mile radius from each other 40 do not overlap in coverage. 41 42 Mr. Frampton stated it would be a deterrent for other carriers to co-locate to a flagpole 43 tower because the antennas are housed inside the pole limiting the radius coverage. 44 He then explained that the overlap shown on the map would be for on-street coverage. 45 The need was not for more on-street coverage but for coverage to mobile, residential 46 and commercial buildings. 47 48 Member Mills asked to confirm that the propagation map did not take into consideration 49 the tower site located at SR 15-A.

Page 9 of 13 DRAFT

1 2 Mr. Frampton stated that the tower would not adequately cover the level of service 3 needed for mobile, residential and commercial businesses for the area the proposed 4 tower would service. 5 6 Member Young inquired what would the impact be if the request was not approved. 7 8 Mr. Frampton stated there would be reduced coverage and service to the area. He said 9 he could not speculate what impact new technology would be on the need for cell 10 towers. 11 12 Mr. Ashley asked to show the propagation maps from the St. Johns Lodge special 13 exception case for both existing and future coverage if the tower were built. He 14 explained that the maps showed there would be coverage but it would not reach the 15 zone where the proposed tower would service. 16 17 Member Bender inquired about the location of the tower on the subject property. 18 19 Mr. Frampton explained staff had recommended to move the tower further south from 20 the center of the property in order to minimize the number of residences impacted within 21 a 500 foot radius. 22 23 Chair Severino expressed his concern for so many towers within a 1.5 mile radius of 24 each other and supported that the logic was sound from a business point of view. 25 26 Member Gove inquired about the future development of the area and the waterbody 27 shown on the ECO map (staff report page 41 of 44). 28 29 Mr. Ashley explained what development was allowed for both Urban Low Intensity and 30 Rural Agriculture (A-2) classifications. Mr. Ashley stated the waterbody shown was a 31 low impression area that holds water during large rain events, but was primarily dry 32 throughout the year. This condition would require further review for future development. 33 34 Mr. Frampton stated that the concerns brought forward by the commission, in his 35 opinion, should be part of the code. He further stated that the applicant had done 36 everything that was required to meet present code. 37 38 Chair Severino opened the floor for public participation. He reminded the participants 39 that comments made would be heard for both cases. 40 41 David Brant, 237 Violetwood Road, DeLand, Florida. He stated he was opposed to the 42 construction of the tower because the lighting would be seen from his front picture 43 . He also stated he was opposed of any waiver to the 1,000 foot requirement for 44 the tower. He suggested other sites in the Lake Gertie area be explored. 45 46 Jeffery and Jacqueline Spina, 230 Violetwood Road, DeLand, Florida. Mrs. Spina read 47 for the record a letter from Carolyn and Ross Giamportone, adjacent property owners 48 currently residing in Olive Branch, Mississippi. The letter expressed the Giamportone’s 49 opposition to the proposed tower (Evidence 1). Their opposition included the height of

Page 10 of 13 DRAFT

1 the tower, lighting of the tower, possible lightning strikes, impact on property values, no 2 proof to the lack of 911 emergency access, and possible electromagnetic emissions 3 dangers due to close proximity to the tower. 4 5 Mr. Spina stated that Skyway Towers had approached him and his business partner for 6 a possible location site on the 31 acres they own. He said that after reviewing the 7 proposal, it was decided to reject the offer. Mr. Spina stated for the record he would be 8 willing to reopen negotiations for an alternative site would be located behind the fire 9 station off of W. International Speedway Boulevard. He stated he was in opposition of 10 the proposed tower being located 258 feet from his home. 11 12 Member Van Dam asked if there had been discussion with the neighbors located on the 13 north side of Violetwood regarding their opinion of the proposed tower. 14 15 Mr. Spina stated he canvassed the neighborhood. He then stated that some of those 16 he spoke with stated they were not notified by certified letter. He said that the general 17 consensus was that no one wanted the tower. 18 19 Christina Brant, 236 Violetwood Road, DeLand, Florida. She said that the tower would 20 be an obtrusive sight from her front picture window. She stated that the only people she 21 was aware of who received the certified letters were four adjoining property owners. To 22 her knowledge, no one else in the Violetwood neighborhood received notification. She 23 stated the orange signs posted were not visible. She said she had concerns that 24 Verizon was only leasing and had no ownership of the property. The area had been 25 leased in the past but only for grazing farm animals. She stated she was opposed to 26 the tower at this location. 27 28 There being no further public participation, the floor was opened for commission 29 discussion. 30 31 Chair Severino invited Mr. Frampton to speak in rebuttal. 32 33 Mr. Frampton requested that the commission not take into consideration the opinions of 34 others that were given second hand. He addressed that health concerns were covered 35 by federal law and not a reason to deny an application. He said that negative impact on 36 real estate was an opinion and should be part of the code if considered for granting an 37 application. He said moving the tower more south would help develop the proposed site 38 to be developed further. He acknowledged the residence directly to the north and south 39 would see the tower, other residences would not. He stated that Skyway Towers would 40 be willing to agree to a condition that if the proposed tower was not in use for 12 41 months, a bond would be submitted to take it down. 42 43 Member Bender inquired about previous negotiations with Mr. Spina and other sites. 44 45 Mr. Frampton stated he did not have personal knowledge of the negotiations with Mr. 46 Spina. He then explained how the site acquisition team identified potential sites. 47 48 Member Bender stated he was in favor for the applicant and Mr. Spina to reopen 49 negotiations and for the case to be reheard in 30 days.

Page 11 of 13 DRAFT

1 2 Chair Severino inquired about design protection if the tower were to collapse. 3 4 Mr. Frampton assured the commission that the tower would be constructed to all 5 Federal, State and Local regulations. He stated the tower crumple zone could be 6 engineered to lessen impact of a collapse. He indicated that because the adjacent 7 properties were at least the height of the tower in distance away, in his opinion, there 8 would be no tower safety issue. 9 10 Member Mills addressed the statement made by the applicant that issues discussed 11 should be in the code. He said the code states that a setback for a cell tower is 1,000 12 feet from any residential setback and the staff can consider a waiver up to 500 feet. He 13 stated, in his opinion, the request has not met the criteria for falling under the 500 foot 14 waiver. Member Mills addressed due public notice. He explained that the adjoining 15 property owners are notified but acknowledged that the tower would affect more than 16 the adjoining property owners. He said he would be in favor of re-evaluating the 17 notification process to be more inclusive of neighborhoods being impacted by cell 18 towers. 19 20 Member Bender stated during his visit to the site, the orange notice signs were posted 21 appropriately. He said, in his opinion, the issue may have been that the property was 22 located on a cul-de-sac with limited traffic. 23 24 Member Alleva asked if there was verification that the certified letters were sent to the 25 adjoining property owners. He was concerned about Ms. Brant’s statement that she 26 was only aware of four adjoining property owners receiving notice. 27 28 Mr. Ashley stated due public notice had been satisfied. Residences that were not an 29 adjoining property owner would not have received notice. 30 31 Chair Severino asked if there was no more discussion to move forward with a motion. 32 33 Member Bender moved to grant a 30-day continuance to the November 10, 2015 34 PLDRC hearing in order for the applicant to negotiate a possible alternative site 35 36 Member Van Dam seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED (6:1) Member Mills 37 OPPOSED. 38 39 40 OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS 41 42 None 43 44 45 STAFF ITEMS 46 47 None 48 49

Page 12 of 13 DRAFT

1 STAFF COMMENTS 2 3 None 4 5 6 COMMISSION COMMENTS 7 8 None 9 10 11 PRESS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS 12 13 None 14 15 16 ADJOURNMENT 17 18 Having no further comments from the public, staff, or commissioners, Chair Severino 19 thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m.

Page 13 of 13