Dane County Board of Supervisors

ZLR Committee Work Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 2 May 10, 2011

DANE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE

WORK MEETING AGENDA

Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 Time: 7:30 P.M.

Location: ROOM 201, CITY-COUNTY BUILDING

NOTE: If you need an interpreter, translator, materials in alternate formats or other accommodations to access this service, activity or program, please call the phone number below at least three business days prior to the meeting.

NOTA: Si necesita un intérprete, un traductor, materiales en formatos alternativos u otros arreglos para acceder a este servicio, actividad o programa, comuníquese al número de teléfono que figura a continuación tres días hábiles como mínimo antes de la reunión.

LUS CIM: Yog hais tias koj xav tau ib tug neeg txhais lus, ib tug neeg txhais ntawv, cov ntawv ua lwm hom ntawv los sis lwm cov kev pab kom siv tau cov kev pab, cov kev ua ub no (activity) los sis qhov kev pab cuam, thov hu rau tus xov tooj hauv qab yam tsawg peb hnub ua hauj lwm ua ntej yuav tuaj sib tham.

Contact Information: Zoning Office, Planning & Development Department, 266-4266, or 266-9138 (TDD)

ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of the 04/12/11 and 04/27/11 meetings of the Zoning & Land Regulation Committee.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

IV. REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM THE APRIL 27, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING

1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2169 by THOMAS ZICKERT to allow UNLIMITED LIVESTOCK on the property located at 17 EAST MEDINA ROAD in Section 36, Town of Medina.

V. REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

1. PETITION # 10275 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2157 by STOUGHTON FARMS INC to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to A-2(8) Agricultural to allow a 488 FOOT TALL FM RADIO TOWER IN THE A-2(8) ZONING DISTRICT on the property located at 3768 OLD STAGE ROAD in Section 34, Town of Rutland.

ZLR Committee Work Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 2 May 10, 2011

VI. PLATS AND CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS

1. PRELIMINARY PLATS:

Chalet Meadows, Town of Middleton, Section 6 (16 lots, 19 acres, Application deadline is 07/11/2011) Acceptance of application and schedule for a future consideration pursuant to established committee policy.

2. FINAL PLATS:

None

4. CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS:

None

VII. RESOLUTIONS

1. None.

VIII. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

1. None.

IX. OTHER BUSINESS

1. None.

X. ADJOURN

AGENDA POSTED: May 5, 2011 Supervisor Patrick Miles, Chair, Zoning & Land Regulation Committee

ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 April 12, 2011

NOTE: These minutes reflect the notes of the recorder and are subject to correction and approval at a subsequent meeting of the Committee.

ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE Dane County Board of Supervisors

MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2011 MEETING

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruskewitz, Eicher, Jensen, Matano, and Miles.

OTHERS PRESENT: Everson, Lane, and Violante

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Miles called the meeting to order at 7:38pm in Room 351 of the City-County Building.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Matano / Jensen to approve the minutes of the 03/08/11 and 03/22/11 meetings of the Zoning & Land Regulation Committee; motion carried, 4-0-1 (Abstain: Bruskewitz)

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

David Dinkel updated the Committee on the status of pending zoning petitions #10172 (Dalby Farms) and #10179 (Pooche).

IV. ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM THE MARCH 22, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING

1. PETITION # 10291 by JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to R-1 Residential to allow the SEPARATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE FROM THE FARM on the property located at 4973 RIDGE ROAD in Section 36, Town of Sun Prairie.

TOWN: Approved with no conditions

Motion by Jensen / Eicher to recommend approval; motion carried, 5-0.

2. PETITION # 10296 by PROPERTIES ON FISH LAKE LLC to change the zoning from RH-3 Rural Homes to RH-2 Rural Homes to allow the DIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS on the property located WEST OF 8623 SCHOEPP ROAD in Section 03, Town of Roxbury.

TOWN: Approved with conditions

Motion by Bruskewitz / Jensen to recommend approval with conditions; motion carried, 3-2 (Nay: Eicher and Matano).

1. A deed restriction shall be placed on the property to prohibit construction of structures below 868 feet ASL. The lowest floor level, including basement floors, shall not be constructed below this level. 2. A deed notice shall be placed on the individual properties to inform future owners that Fish Lake Road may become impassable at times or be closed to vehicular traffic permanently due to fluctuating water levels of Fish Lake and Mud Lake. 3. A joint driveway agreement shall be recorded between Lots 1 and 2; and between Lot 3 and Lot 1 of CSM 11216 (parcel 0907-032-8140-0). ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 April 12, 2011 4. A vision clearance corner shall be reflected on the certified survey map.

3. PETITION # 10297 by 2121 FISH HATCHERY ROAD LLC to change the zoning from C-1 Commercial to C-2 Commercial to allow ZONING COMPLIANCE FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS on the property located at 2121 FISH HATCHERY ROAD in Section 35, Town of Madison.

TOWN: Approved with conditions

Motion by Jensen / Matano to recommend approval with conditions; motion carried, 5-0.

1. A deed restriction shall be recorded on the property to limit the land use to the following: a. major repairs to motor vehicles b. sales, rental or leasing of new and used motor vehicles c. sales, service and rental of recreational equipment d. parking or storing of motor vehicles e. warehouses f. retail and service uses g. sales and repair of lawn and garden equipment h. bicycle sales and service i. self service laundries and dry cleaning establishments j. medical, dental and veterinary clinics k. banks, offices, office buildings and condominium office buildings l. bakeries m. printing plants n. laundries and dry cleaning plants o. woodworking shops p. machine shops q. rental businesses r. wholesale businesses s. warehousing and storage incidental to a permitted use t. off-site parking of motor vehicles u. Any vehicle/equipment in a state of repair must be behind the front most edifice of the building

4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2165 by JEFFREY MRKVICKA to allow a DAY CAMP SCHOOL on the property located at 2418 DAHLK CIRCLE in Section 25, Town of Springdale.

TOWN: Approved with conditions

Motion by Matano / Eicher to approval Conditional Use Permit #2165 with 5 conditions; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The hours of operation of the day camp school shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. 2. Dates of the operation of the day camp school shall be limited to June 1 through Sept. 15. 3. Capacity of the day camp school shall be limited to 15 children. 4. Signage shall conform to all pertinent ordinances in the Town of Springdale, Dane County and the State of Wisconsin. 5. Adequate off-street parking shall be installed on site to accomodate vehicle parking as required under Dane County Code of Ordinance section 10.18.

V. ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

1. PETITION # 10170 by FJD FARM LLC to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to R-1 Residential to allow the REALIGNMENT OF THREE EXISTING LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT on the property located NORTH OF 502 NORTH MAIN STREET in Section 21, Town of Deerfield. ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 April 12, 2011

TOWN: Approved with no conditions

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend denial of the petition; motion carried, 3-2 (Nay: Bruskewitz and Jensen).

Finding of Fact: There are insufficient housing density rights available on the original farm to create three residential lots.

2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2159 by STANLEY LIEN to allow the RENEWAL OF NON- METALLIC MINERAL EXTRACTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT on the property located at 372 KOSHKONONG RD in Section 14, Town of Christiana.

TOWN: Approved with conditions

Motion by Jensen / Bruskewitz to approval Conditional Use Permit #2159 with 18 conditions; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan covering the entire CUP area for the duration of operations, and receive approval of an erosion control permit prior to commencing extraction operations. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive all other required local, state, and federal permits. 3. The operator shall develop and operate the site according to the submitted site and operations plan. 4. Operations shall cease no later than fifteen (15) years from the date of issuance of the conditional use permit. 5. Reclamation shall be completed within one year after operations have ceased, and shall be phased according to the revised operations and reclamation plan. 6. Reclamation shall meet requirements of Chapter 74 of the Dane County Code of Ordinances. 7. All drive aisles shall be either graveled or paved according to revised operations plans, and shall be maintained in a dust free manner in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. 8. Open excavation area shall not exceed eight (8) acres. 9. Hours of operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. There shall be no Sunday operations. Crushing of stone shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Crushing shall not be permitted on Saturday, Sunday or legal holidays. 10. There shall be a minimum of an 80-foot setback from all Township roadway right of way lines, and a minimum of a 200-foot setback from all property lines of other owners. 11. There shall be a safety fence around portions of the extraction area that contains high walls and/or steep slopes. That safety fence shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height with a single strand of barbed wire on the top. For areas that are not high walls or steep slopes, during operations, the edges of the extraction area shall be maintained at a slope no greater than 1:1. The site shall be signed, “no trespassing”. 12. All blasting shall be performed in strict accordance with State of Wisconsin rules and regulations. No explosives shall be stored on the quarry site. 13. The owner/operator shall notify, in writing, the Town of Christiana Clerk, local utility (Wisconsin Power and Light), and residents living within one-quarter mile of the open excavation area of the quarrying activity, the dates of blasting at the quarry. Said notification shall be provided more than 72 hours prior to blasting. 14. The operator shall use spray bars (water) in the crushing process to reduce dust. Use of spray bars is not required when the temperature is below freezing. The operator shall spray the site with water if and when needed to control dust. 15. The operator shall require all trucks, excavation, crushing, screening and washing equipment to have ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 April 12, 2011 muffler systems, which meet or exceed then current industry standards for noise abatement. 16. The applicant shall meet DNR standards for particulate emissions as described in NR 415.075, Wisconsin Administrative Code. 17. Owner/operator shall maintain liability insurance coverage in the amount of $5,000,000 and maintained at that level or greater until the quarry is closed or CUP 2159 expires. Proof of insurance shall be submitted annually to the Township and the insurance Township shall be named as an additional insured. 18. The Dane County zoning administrator or designee may enter the premises of the operation to inspect those premises and to ascertain compliance with these conditions or to investigate an alleged violation. If the operation is not in reasonable compliance with the terms of this approval, such approval is subject to amendment or revocation.

VI. PLATS AND CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS

1. PRELIMINARY PLATS:

None.

2. FINAL PLATS:

None.

3. PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS:

a. Variance request for Todd Nelson, Town of Dunn, Section 8, to allow a proposed 1-lot Certified Survey Map to maintain less than the minimum frontage of 66-feet to facilitate the possible development of a public right-of-way that could service additional lots. Lot 1 is proposing 28.02 feet of road frontage along Jordan Drive.

Motion by Bruskewitz / Jensen to grant a variance from Dane County Code of Ordinance Section 75.19(6)(b) to allow proposed lot 1 to have 28.02 feet of public road frontage along Jordan Drive; motion carried, 5-0.

Motion by Jensen / Eicher to approve the preliminary Certified Survey Maps listed as b thru d subject to the following conditions; motion carried, 5-0.

b. APPLICATION # 9276, Mark Wagner, Town of Middleton, Section 7 (1 lot, 1.8 acres)

1. The document is to be completed in accordance with S.236.34, Wisconsin State Statutes.

2. The net lot area calculation is to be specified in square feet.

3. The intermittent stream is to be shown and labeled as such.

4. All owners of record are to be included in the owner’s certificate. (County records indicate that WAGNER DAIRY FARMS LLC is the owner). Middle initials are required to provide valid certificates.

5. The City of Middleton approval certificate is to be included with respect to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

6. The required certificates are to be executed.

7. Comments from the Dane County Surveyor are to be satisfied: • There is course missing in the boundary description (N 34-59-59 E, 139.80 per map). Please correct the description to include said course. The misclosure is negligible with the course inserted. 236.34(1)(b) & 236.34(1)(d)(2) ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 April 12, 2011

• The map indicates a monument set at the West 1/4 corner of Section 7. Please file the appropriate USPLSS Monument Record as per administrative code. A-E 7.08

8. The recordable document is to be submitted for review and approval.

c. APPLICATION # 9277, Crazy Acres, Town of Albion, Section 23 (1 lot, 4.9 acres)

1. Rezone Petition #10262 is to become effective (one day following publication in the Wisconsin State Journal) and all conditions established with Zoning Petition #10262 are to be timely satisfied. • Recording of an approved CSM. • Record the Deed Restriction. • Payment of Rezone Conversion Fees.

2. The document is to be completed in accordance with S.236.34, Wisconsin State Statutes.

3. The net lot area calculation is to be specified in square feet.

4. All owners of record are to be included in the owner’s certificate. (County records indicate that CRAZY ACRES INC is the owner). Middle initials are required to provide valid certificates.

5. The required certificates are to be executed.

6. Any comments from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation are to be satisfied.

7. Dane County Surveyor approvals are to be obtained. When all revisions are complete, submit a copy to the Dane County Surveyor for technical review and approval.

8. The recordable document is to be submitted for review and approval.

d. APPLICATION # 9281, David Roark, Town of Cross Plains, Section 24 (3 lots, 20 acres)

1. Rezone Petition #10277 is to become effective (one day following publication in the Wisconsin State Journal) and all conditions established with Zoning Petition #10277 are to be timely satisfied.

2. The document is to be completed in accordance with S.236.34, Wisconsin State Statutes.

3. Lot 2 is to be a minimum of 2.0 acres net excluding the road right-of-way.

4. The Town approval certificate is to be satisfied.

5. All owners of record are to be included in the owner’s certificate. (County records indicate that DAVID M ROARK & LYNN B ROARK and J & A LLC is the owner). Spouse’s signature and middle initials are required to provide valid certificates.

6. The required certificates are to be executed.

7. Dane County Surveyor approvals are to be obtained. When all revisions are complete, submit a copy to the Dane County Surveyor for technical review and approval.

8. The recordable document is to be submitted for review and approval.

4. CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS:

Motion by Jensen / Eicher to approve final Certified Survey Maps listed a thru d; motion carried, 5-0. Chair Miles signed the Certified Survey Maps.

ZLR Committee Work Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 April 12, 2011

a. APPLICATION # 9233, Gary Paulman, Town of Windsor, Section 12 (3 lots, 29.5 acres)

b. APPLICATION # 9258, Ronald Dorshorst, Town of Sun Prairie, Section 36 (2 lots, 20.8 acres)

c. APPLICATION # 9264, Ted White, Town of Primrose, Section 27 (1 lot, 4.2 acres)

d. APPLICATION # 9270, Don Tierney, Town of Windsor, Section 25 (1 lot, 1.4 acres)

VII. RESOLUTIONS

1. RESOLUTION 312, 2010-2011, Authorizing acceptance of Dane County’s Share of US EPA Climate Showcase Communities Grant Funding

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend approval of Resolution 312; motion carried, 5-0.

2. RESOLUTION 322, 2010-2011, Approving Natural Path Sanctuary Cemetery Plat, Section 24, Town of Springdale

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend approval of Resolution 322; motion carried, 5-0.

VIII. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

1. None.

IX. OTHER BUSINESS

5. Update Zoning and Land Regulation Committee’s Rules and Procedures

Motion by Matano / Eicher to approved the revisions of the Committee Rules and Procedures with minor text changes on page 11 (corrections to Federal Register and Administrator Code references) and to delegate the authority of Certified Survey Map review/approval to Planning and Development Staff (Daniel Everson); motion carried, 5-0.

6. Delegate authority of Certified Survey Map review and approval to Planning and Development Staff

See motion above.

X. ADJOURN

Motion by Matano / Eicher to adjourn the meeting at 9:14pm; motion carried, 5-0.

Roger Lane, Recording Secretary Minutes filed with the County Clerk 04/13/11

Note: These minutes are the notes of the recorder and are subject to change at a subsequent meeting of the committee. ZLR Committee Public Hearing Agenda Page 1 of 4 April 27, 2011

ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE Dane County Board of Supervisors

MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruskewitz, Eicher, Jensen, Miles, and Matano.

OTHERS PRESENT: Everson, Kodl, Lane, Violante, and Members of the Public.

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Miles called the meeting to order at 7:35pm in Room 201 of the City-County Building.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

No comments made by the public.

III. PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

1. PETITION # 10298 by ALLAN BREUNIG to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to R-1 Residential and A-4 to allow a ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT on the property located at 8312 COUNTY HIGHWAY V in Section 23, Town of Roxbury.

IN FAVOR: Allan Breunig, Ken Meinholz, Nick Ganser OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Approved with no conditions

Motion by Jensen / Matano to recommend approval; motion carried, 5-0.

2. PETITION # 10299 by EUGENE LARSEN to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to A- 2(2) Agricultural and A-4 to allow the SEPARATION OF THE FARM RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS on the property located at 7012 PATTON ROAD in Section 22, Town of Vienna.

IN FAVOR: Daniel Paulson of Paulson and Associates represented Eugene Larsen OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Approved with condition

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend approval with condition; motion carried, 5-0

1. Deed restrict parcel number 0909-214-8160-7 to prohibit residential development on the remaining A-1 Exclusive land. The housing density rights have been exhausted for the original farm. 2. The A-4 parcel shall be deed restricted to prohibit buildings being constructed on the parcel.

ZLR Committee Public Hearing Agenda Page 2 of 4 April 27, 2011

3. PETITION # 10300 by RANDY DOCKEN to change the zoning from A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural to A-2(4) Agricultural to allow the SEPARATION OF THE FARM RESIDENCE AND BUILDINGS on the property located at 2469 DOCKEN RD in Section 14, Town of Blue Mounds.

IN FAVOR: Petitioner OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Approved with condition

Motion by Bruskewitz / Matano to recommend approval with condition; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The A-2(4) parcel shall be deed restricted to one animal unit per one full acre of land. 2. The recorded lot shall not exceed 7.9 acres of land.

4. PETITION # 10301 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2168 by THOMAS RINDY to change the zoning from B-1 Local Business to C-1 Commercial to allow a DUPLEX on the property located at 1734 WASHINGTON STREET in Section 34, Town of Springdale.

IN FAVOR: Stuart Rindy representing Thomas Rindy OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Approved the zoning petition and conditional use permit with conditions

Motion by Bruskewitz / Jensen to recommend approval of zoning petition #10301 with condition; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The parcel shall be deed restricted to the land use to a duplex only.

Motion by Matano / Bruskewitz to approve Conditional Use Permit #2168 with the following condition and contingent upon zoning petition #10301 becoming effective; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The residential use of this property shall be limited to a duplex (two residences).

5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2166 by URBAN ASSETS LLC to allow a DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION FACILITY on the property located at 2102 FORDEM AVENUE in Section 12, Town of Madison.

IN FAVOR: Melissa Huggins and Shannon Barry representing Domestic Abuse Intervention Services, Doug Hersh representing Potter Lawson Architects. OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Approved with condition

Motion by Matano / Eicher to approve with the following conditions; motion carried, 5-0.

1. The property shall be used for a domestic abuse intervention facility. 2. Parking and exterior lighting shall meet the requirements found under Dane County Code of Ordinance section 10.18. 3. Domestic Abuse Intervention Services (DAIS) shall enter into an agreement with the Town of Madison for payments in lieu of taxes for Town services. The first annual payment will be for the amount of $10,000 with subsequent payments adjusted for inflation.

ZLR Committee Public Hearing Agenda Page 3 of 4 April 27, 2011

6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 2169 by THOMAS ZICKERT to allow UNLIMITED LIVESTOCK on the property located at 17 EAST MEDINA ROAD in Section 36, Town of Medina.

IN FAVOR: David Dinkel representing Thomas Zickert OPPOSED: None STAFF: P&D, HWY TOWN: Pending

Motion by Jensen / Eicher to postpone; motion carried, 5-0.

IV. REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

1. PETITION # 10292 by MICHAEL PEPER to change the zoning from RH-3 Rural Homes and RH-1 Rural Homes to RH-3 and RH-1 to allow the RECONFIGURATION THE SHAPE OF TWO EXISTING LOTS on the property located at 4411 and 4413 LIBBY ROAD in Section 32, Town of Blooming Grove.

TOWN: Approved with no conditions

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend approval; motion carried, 5-0.

V. PLATS AND CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS

1. PRELIMINARY PLATS:

a. REVERE TRAILS, Town of Windsor, Section 33 & 34 (89 lots) (73 acres) (Application deadline is 06/13/2011) Acceptance of application and schedule for a future consideration pursuant to established committee policy.

Motion by Jensen / Bruskewitz to postpone accepting the application to allow the applicant to work on outstanding issues regarding the community septic system plan with the Public Health Department and the violation with the DNR concerning the wetlands; motion carried, 5-0.

2. FINAL PLATS:

a. FIRST ADDITION TO NATURE VALLEY CONSERVATION, Town of Vienna, Section 36 (15 lots) (15.3 acres) Consideration of the 12/14/10 conditional approval and execution of the plat document pursuant to established Committee policy. Staff finds that the 07/13/2010 conditions of approval have been satisfied.

Motion by Jensen / Bruskewitz to approve; motion carried, 5-0. Chair Miles signed the Plat.

3. CERTIFIED SURVEY MAPS:

a. None.

VI. RESOLUTIONS

1. RESOLUTION 1, 2011-2012 – Authorizing Emergency Fire Wardens for Dane County for the Year 2011.

Motion by Matano / Eicher to recommend approval; motion carried, 5-0.

ZLR Committee Public Hearing Agenda Page 4 of 4 April 27, 2011

VII. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

1. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 13, 2010-2011: Amending Chapter 82 of the Dane County Code Of Ordinances, Incorporating the Town of Middleton Comprehensive Plan into the Dane County Comprehensive Plan.

Motion by Jensen / Matano to suspend the rules to allow registrants to speak; motion carried, 5-0.

Tim Roehl, Town of Middleton Supervisor, was opposed to the amendments made by County Planning staff.

David Shaw, Town of Middleton Administrator, was concerned with the proposed amendments.

Motion by Bruskewitz / Matano to postpone to allow time for Planning Staff to meet with Town officials to resolve differences; motion carried, 5-0.

2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 37, 2010-2011: Amending Chapter 10, Defining Small Scale Electric Generating Stations and Requiring a Conditional Use Permit for Such Uses in the A-1 Exclusive Agriculture District.

TOWNS IN FAVOR: 15 TOWNS OPPOSED: 4

Motion by Jensen / Matano to approve Substitute 1 as an amendment to Ordinance Amendment 37; motion carried, 5-0.

Motion by Jensen / Matano to recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment, Substitute 1; motion carried, 5-0.

3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 5, 2011-2012 – Amending Ch. 12, Exempting Farm Buildings from Zoning Permit Fees.

Motion by Jensen / Bruskewitz to recommend approval; motion carried, 5-0.

VIII. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

IX. ADJOURN

Motion by Matano / Eicher to adjourn the meeting at 9:03pm; motion carried, 5-0.

Roger Lane, Recording Secretary Minutes filed with the County Clerk 04/28/11

Note: These minutes are the notes of the recorder and are subject to change at a subsequent meeting of the committee. STAFF REPORT DANE COUNTY ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE

Dane County Application for Change in Zoning or CUP Hearing Date: 4/27/2011 Item #: 6 Zoning Petition #: None C.U.P. #: 2169 Town/Section: Town of Medina/36 Internal Tracking Number: RECU25835 Applicant: THOMAS ZICKERT Location: 17 EAST MEDINA ROAD Area: 4.0 acres Delayed Effective Date: NO Proposed Use: UNLIMITED LIVESTOCK

Description: Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for unlimited livestock in the A-2(4) zoning district. A prospective buyer of the 4-acre parcel wishes to raise cattle and other livestock on the property (less than 60 animal units). Thomas Zickert owns the surrounding ~70 acres of farmland and has agreed to allow the new owner to spread manure on the larger tract of ag land.

Observations: The entire property is Class II soils. No significant environmental features observed on the property.

Town Plan: The subject property is located in the Agricultural Preservation district. The goal of this district is to preserve land for long-term farm use.

Staff: Staff suggests that a nutrient (manure) management plan be obtained from Dane County Land Conservation Division. See attached suggested conditions.

4/27 ZLR: Postponed due to no town action.

Town: Approved with condtion.

TOWN ACTION ZLR COMMITTEE ACTION - REZONING ZLR CUP APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION Approved ______ Postponed ______ Appoved As Specified by Town Approve Cond/Amnd Town Cond/Amnd Comm Con by ZLR DENY Denied ______ As Ccnditioned ______Date______COUNTY BOARD ACTION Subject To: Amended Changed Zone Dist. ______REZONING Conditions Amendments Changed Boundary Description Referred Date______ Approved Amended on Floor IF CUP: DENY DENY County Board Agenda Item Conditions None Vote Action Date ______-_____

Dane County Zoning Division City-County Building 210 Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd., Room 116 Madison Wisconsin 53703 (608) 266-4266/266-9083 Fax (608) 267-1540

DANE COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #2169

THE ZONING AND LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE OF THE DANE COUNTY BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.255(2) OF THE DANE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES DOES HEREBY:

GRANT Conditional Use Permit #2169 for unlimited livestock pursuant to Dane County Code of Ordinance Section 10.126(3) and subject to any conditions contained herein.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT: PENDING

THE CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 17 East Medina Road, Town of Medina, Dane County, Wisconsin

Parcel # 0812-361-8010-0

Lot 1, Certified Survey Map 13002, Section 36, Town of Medina, T8N, R12E, Dane County, Wisconsin

CONDITIONS:

1. Owner is responsible for instituting a manure management plan approved by Dane County Land Conservation.

2. The conditional use permit shall expire when Erick Mankowski no longer lives on the premises as a tenant or owner.

3. Up to 15 animal units shall be allowed for the first year of the Conditional Use Permit; Up to 31 animal units may be permitted after the first year subject to the review of the operation by the Town. Animal units shall be equivelant to one (1) large beef cattle or two (2) small beef cattle

THE ZONING AND LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE AFTER PUBLIC HEARING AND IN THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals comfort or general welfare.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Conditional Use Permits\CUP #2169 proposed.doc 2. That the uses, values, and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted will not be substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed conditional use.

3. That the establishment of the proposed conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.

(Continued on page 2) 4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements will be made.

5. That adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.

6. That the proposed conditional use does conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is proposed to be located.

EXPIRATION OF PERMIT In addition to any time limit established as a condition in granting this CUP, Section 10.25(2)(n) of the Dane County Code of Ordinances provides that any use for which a conditional use permit has been issued, upon its cessation or abandonment for a period of one year, will be deemed to have been terminated and any future use shall be in conformity with the ordinance.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Conditional Use Permits\CUP #2169 proposed.doc STAFF REPORT DANE COUNTY ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE

Dane County Application for Change in Zoning or CUP Hearing Date: 1/25/2011 Item #: 5 Zoning Petition #: 10275 C.U.P. #: 2157 Town/Section: Town of Rutland/34 Internal Tracking Number: RECU25799 Applicant: STOUGHTON FARMS INC Location: 3768 OLD STAGE ROAD Area: 15.5 acres Delayed Effective Date: YES Rezone Reason: ALLOW FOR A FM Change: From A-1EX Exclusive Agricultural To A-2(8) RADIO TOWER Agricultural Proposed Use: FM RADIO TOWER IN THE A-2(8) ZONING DISTRICT

Description: Magnum Communications is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower in the A-2(8) Agriculture Zoning District. Applicant proposes to construct a 488-foot tall FM radio tower on the property for relocation of existing station WBKY FM (95.9, “Bucky Country”), currently located in Portage, WI. The applicant has obtained the required FCC licenses for the proposed relocation.

Observations: Proposed site is approximately 2,000 feet off Old Stage Road. The property is adjacent to a significant woodland area to the southeast, farmlands to the west, and numerous rural residential properties to the east and north.

Town Plan: The property is in an agricultural preservation area. Town policies in this area are designed to protect agricultural uses and rural character from incompatible uses.

Staff: The County’s Radio Frequency Engineering consultant is reviewing the proposal for compliance with the county’s communication tower ordinance. A detailed staff report will be provided upon receipt of the engineer’s report.

Staff recommends postponement of the petition to allow for public input at the hearing.

1/25 ZLR: Postponed due to opposition by the public and no town action. The Committee Chair requested that a second public hearing be held on March 8, 2011.

Town: Denied both the zoning map amendment and the CUP.

TOWN BOARD ACTION REPORT – REZONE Regarding Petition #______Dane County Zoning & Land Regulation Committee Public Hearing Date______Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of______having considered said zoning petition, be it therefore resolved that said petition is hereby (check one): ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Postponed Town Planning Commission Vote: _____ in favor _____ opposed _____ abstained Town Board Vote: _____ in favor _____ opposed _____ abstained

THE PETITION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S) (Check all appropriate boxes):

1. ❑ Deed restriction limiting use(s) in the ______zoning district to only the following:

2. ❑ Deed restrict the balance of A-1 EX Agricultural Exclusive zoned land owned by the applicant from the original farm (as of date specified in the Town Plan) prohibiting non-farm development. Please provide property description, or tax parcel number(s):

3. ❑ Deed restrict the applicant's property described below prohibiting division. Please provide property description, or tax parcel number(s):

4. ❑ Condition that the applicant must record a Notice Document which states all residential development units (a.k.a. splits) have been exhausted on the property, and further residential development is prohibited under Town & County Land Use Planning policies. Please provide property description, or tax parcel number(s):

5. ❑ Other Condition(s). Please specify:

Please note: The following space is reserved for comment by the minority voter(s), OR, for the Town to explain its approval if the decision does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Town Plan.

I, ______, as Town Clerk of the Town of______, County of Dane, hereby certify that the above resolution was adopted in a lawful meeting of the Town Board on______

Town Clerk______Date:______

545-105 (2/06) WEB TOWN BOARD ACTION REPORT – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Regarding Petition # ______Dane County ZLR Committee Public Hearing ______

Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of ______having considered said conditional use permit application, be it therefore resolved that said conditional use permit is hereby (check one): APPROVED DENIED (IF DENIED, PLEASE COMPLETE FINDINGS SECTION ON PAGE 2)

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: ____ In Favor ____ Opposed

TOWN BOARD VOTE: ____ In Favor ____ Opposed

Whereas, in support of its decision, the Town Board has made appropriate findings of fact that the standards listed in section 10.255(2)(h), Dane County Code of Ordinances, and section 10.123(3)(a), if applicable, are found to be (check one): SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED (PLEASE COMPLETE FINDINGS SECTION ON PAGE 2)

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):

______

PLEASE NOTE: The following space, and additional pages as needed, are reserved for comment by the minority voter(s), OR, for the Town to explain its approval if the decision does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Town Plan. ______

I, ______, as Town Clerk of the Town of ______, County of Dane, hereby certify that the above resolution was adopted in a lawful meeting of the Town Board on ______, 20____.

______, 20____. Town Clerk Date

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

If the Conditional Use Permit application is denied, please complete the following section. For each of the standards, indicate if the standard was found to be satisfied or not satisfied. Please note the following from section 10.255(2)(b):

“No permit shall be granted when the zoning committee or applicable town board determines that the standards are not met, nor shall a permit be denied when the zoning committee and applicable town board determine that the standards are met.”

PLEASE INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE FINDING FOR EACH STANDARD (CHECK ONE / STANDARD)

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the 1. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare.

2. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the 2. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use.

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede 3. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other 4. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED necessary site improvements have been or are being made.

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide 5. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable 6. SATISFIED / NOT SATISFIED regulations of the district in which it is located.

THIS SECTION IS RESERVED FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE FINDINGS:

______

Room 116, City-County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Fax (608) 267-1540 Housing & Economic Development (608)266-4270, Rm. 362 TO: ZLR Committee Planning (608)266-4251, Rm. 116 FROM: Majid Allan, Senior Planner Records & Support DATE: May 5, 2011 (608)266-4251, Rm. 116

RE: Town of Rutland denial of petition 10275 / CUP 2157 (Magnum Zoning Communications proposed 488’ FM radio tower) (608)266-4266, Rm. 116

As noted on the staff report for the town of Rutland has denied petition 10275 / CUP 2157. The town board’s initial action on CUP 2157 did not include any written findings of fact in support of the denial. At a subsequent meeting on May 3rd, the town board amended its initial action report to include several findings of fact in support of its denial of CUP 2157. Staff is awaiting an opinion from corporation counsel regarding the town’s amended action on the petition. Past experience suggests that, so long as proper parliamentary procedures were followed, it is likely that the amended town action is legitimate and properly constitutes the town board’s action on the matter.

On May 2nd, Magnum Communications filed an appeal of the town board’s denial of CUP 2157, citing as part of the grounds for the appeal, the absence of any written findings of fact in the town board’s initial action. That appeal has been transmitted to the county clerk and filed with the county board. Had the town board not amended its action, the absence of written findings would constitute an approval of the CUP application.

Changes to the county ordinance enacted in 2008 provide towns with binding authority to deny conditional use permits. The following is the pertinent provision from s. 10.255(2)(c)2 of the ordinance:

2. Either the town board or the zoning committee may deny an application for conditional use permit. If the town board action is denial no further action by the zoning committee is required. The zoning committee may approve or deny a conditional use permit without town action if the town board fails to act within the time period set forth in sub. 1. above. All such decisions may be appealed to the county board under sub. (2)(j). If the county board reverses a denial by the town board, the application shall be referred to the zoning committee with instructions to draft appropriate conditions. (emphasis added)

Attached for your reference is a copy of the county ordinance provisions regarding Conditional Use Permits.

Since the town acted on the CUP within the allotted timeframe, and because an appeal of the town’s denial has already been filed, staff advises that the committee take no action on CUP 2157.

The town’s recommendation to deny rezoning petition 10275, however, does require committee action. The committee has two practical options: recommend denial of petition 10275 to the county board, or recommend approval of the petition with conditions/amendments (e.g., restriction prohibiting any residential development on the property). The CUP has been denied by the town, and any conditional approval of the zoning petition will cycle back to the town for final action. Staff will be at the May 10 work meeting and can respond to any additional questions the committee may have.

Conditional Use Permit provisions from section 10.255 Dane County Code of Ordinances

(2) Conditional uses. (a) Statement of purposes. The development and execution of this ordinance is based upon the division of the county into districts, within which districts the use of land and buildings, and bulk and location of buildings and structures in relation to the land are mutually compatible and substantially uniform. However, there are certain uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as unrestricted permitted uses in any particular district or districts, without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses upon neighboring land or public facilities, and of the public need for the particular use at a particular location. Such uses, nevertheless, may be necessary or desirable to be allowed in a particular district provided that due consideration is given to location, development and operation of such uses. Such uses are classified as conditional uses and are of such an unusual nature that their operation may give rise to unique problems with respect to their impact upon neighboring property or public facilities. The following provisions are then established to regulate those conditional uses which require special consideration.

(b) Authority. Subject to sub. (c), the zoning committee, after a public hearing, shall, within a reasonable time, grant or deny any application for conditional use. Prior to granting or denying a conditional use, the zoning committee shall make findings of fact based on evidence presented and issue a determination whether the prescribed standards are met. No permit shall be granted when the zoning committee or applicable town board determines that the standards are not met, nor shall a permit be denied when the zoning committee and applicable town board determine that the standards are met.

(c) Town/zoning committee action. 1. The town board of the town where a conditional use is proposed shall be given notice and opportunity to approve or disapprove a conditional use. The town board shall communicate its position in writing on the conditional use application within sixty (60) days of the date of the public hearing. The town board may request an extension of the review period of up to forty (40) days by submitting a written request to the zoning committee. The zoning committee shall not take action on the application for conditional use until the time period for action by the town board has expired.

3. Town board and zoning committee actions shall be supported by written findings of fact. Failure of a town board or the zoning committee to make written findings of fact shall constitute approval of the application. Written findings of fact shall, at a minimum, address the standards enumerated in sub. (2)(h) and, where applicable, s. 10.123(3). All findings shall be based solely upon the evidence within the public record.

4. If the town board approves the application subject to conditions and such conditions are amended or deleted by the zoning committee, the conditional use permit as approved by the zoning committee shall be submitted to the town board for approval of the zoning committee’s conditions or denial of the permit. The town board shall submit a certified resolution indicating their action to the zoning administrator within forty (40) days of the approval by the zoning committee. If the town board does not act within the forty (40) day time period, the permit shall be deemed approved. If the town board denies the permit with the conditions as amended by the zoning committee, the permit shall be deemed denied. Such denial is appealable to the county board under sub. (2)(j).

(d) Initiation of conditional use. Any person, firm, corporation or organization having a freehold interest, a possessory interest entitled to exclusive possession, a contractual interest which may be a freehold interest, or an exclusive possessory interest which is specifically enforceable in the land for which a

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Update on Rutland denial of 10275-2157.doc 2 conditional use is sought, may file an application to use such land for one or more of the conditional uses provided for in this ordinance provided that the conditional use is one which is permitted by the zoning ordinance in the zoning district where the parcel is located.

(e) Application for conditional use. An application for a conditional use shall be filed with the zoning administrator on a form prescribed by the zoning administrator. The application shall be accompanied by such plans and other information as may be prescribed by the zoning administrator or the zoning committee and shall include a statement in writing by the applicant and adequate evidence showing that the proposed conditional use shall conform to the standards set forth in par. (h) hereinafter.

(f) Hearing on application. Upon receipt of the application and statement referred to in par. (e) above, the zoning committee shall hold a public hearing on each application for conditional use at such time and place as shall be established by the zoning committee. The hearing shall be conducted and a record of the proceedings shall be preserved in such manner and according to such procedures as the zoning committee shall, by rule, prescribe from time to time.

(g) Notice of public hearing shall be given by publication of a Class 2 notice as provided for in chapter 985 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Notice to parties of interest shall be according to policies established by the zoning committee.

(h) Standards. No application for a conditional use shall be granted by the town board or zoning committee unless such body shall find that all of the following conditions are present:

1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare;

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district;

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made;

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; and

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. (i) Conditions and guarantees. Prior to the granting of any conditional use, the town board and zoning committee may stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the conditional use as deemed necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community and to secure compliance with the standards and requirements specified in subsection (h) above. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the town board and zoning committee shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the being and will be complied with.

1. In addition to such other conditions as the town board and zoning committee may impose upon any conditional use, in the case of dependency living arrangements, each body shall require as a condition of approval that the use shall be discontinued at the time that a dependent person ceases to reside in the secondary living area. In no event shall the space so created be used for general rental purposes. The town board and zoning committee may, if they so desire, require the owner to record deed restrictions implementing these additional restrictions and such deed restrictions may be required to run in favor of the county, the town and adjacent landowners.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Update on Rutland denial of 10275-2157.doc 3 (j) Appeal. Any person aggrieved by the grant or denial of a conditional use permit, or the county board supervisor of the district in which the affected parcel is located, may appeal the decision of the town board or zoning committee to the county board. Such appeal must specify the grounds thereof in respect to the findings of the zoning committee, town board or both, the reason why the appellant is aggrieved and must be filed with the office of the zoning administrator within 20 days of the final action. The zoning administrator shall transmit such appeal to the county clerk who shall file such appeal with the county board. The county board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal and give public notice thereof as well as due notice to the applicant and the appellant(s) and decide the same within a reasonable time. The action of the zoning committee, town board or both, shall be deemed just and equitable unless the county board by a three-fourths vote of supervisors present and voting reverses or modifies the action appealed from. An appeal from a decision of the zoning committee, town board or both, shall be taken to the county board. No other entity of county government has jurisdiction to hear any such appeal and the avenue of appeal provided for herein is exclusive.

(k) Effect of denial of application. No application for a conditional use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of said denial, except on the grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the zoning committee.

(l) In any case where the holder of a conditional use permit issued under this ordinance has not instituted the use or begun construction within one year of the date of approval, the permit shall be null and void.

(m) Revocation of a conditional use permit. If the zoning committee finds that the standards in subsection (2)(h) and the conditions stipulated therein are not being complied with, the zoning committee, after a public hearing as provided in subs. (2)(f) and (g), may revoke the conditional use permit. Appeals from the action of the zoning committee may be as provided in sub. (2)(j).

(n) Abandoned conditional uses. Any use, for which a conditional use permit has been issued, upon its cessation or abandonment for a period of one year, will be deemed to have been terminated and any future use shall be in conformity with these ordinances.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Update on Rutland denial of 10275-2157.doc 4

Room 116, City-County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Fax (608) 267-1540 Housing & Economic Development Staff Report for Petition 10275 / Conditional Use Permit 2157 (608)266-4270, Rm. 362

Property Owner: Stoughton Farms, Inc. Planning (608)266-4251, Rm. 116 Property Location: 3768 Old Stage Road, Section 34, Town of Rutland Records & Support Proposed Zoning: A-1EX (Exclusive Agriculture) to A-2(8) Agriculture (608)266-4251, Rm. 116

Proposed Use: Conditional Use Permit for a Communications Tower Zoning (608)266-4266, Rm. 116 Parcel Size: 15.5 acres Proposal Summary: Magnum Communications is requesting a conditional use permit for a communications tower in the A-2(8) Agriculture Zoning District. Applicant proposes to construct a 488-foot tall FM radio tower on the property for relocation of existing station WBKY FM (95.9, “Bucky Country”), currently located in Portage, WI. The applicant has obtained the required FCC licenses for the proposed relocation.

This report includes the following sections: 1. Decision-Making Considerations (pg 2) 2. Summary of Common Tower-Related Issues (pgs 3-4) 3. Relevant Town / County Comprehensive Plan Policies (pgs 5-7) 4. Radio Frequency Engineering Summary & Recommendations (pg 8) 5. Preliminary Staff Analysis (pg 9) 1. Decision-Making Considerations

While the proposal satisfies the standards of the county tower ordinance, the committee must also find that the proposal is consistent with the town and county comprehensive plans, and that the 6 standards enumerated in s. 10.255(2)(h) are satisfied (see below).

In addition, because the proposal involves a rezoning of land out of the A-1EX (Exclusive Agriculture) district, state statutes require that the following findings be made prior to approving a rezoning:

1. The land is better suited for a use not allowed in the farmland preservation zoning district. 2. The rezoning is consistent with any applicable comprehensive plan. 3. The rezoning is substantially consistent with the county certified farmland preservation plan. 4. The rezoning will not substantially impair or limit current or future agricultural use of surrounding parcels of land that are zoned for or legally restricted to agricultural use.

When granting CUPs, the ZLR and respective town board need to find that the proposed conditional use satisfies the following six standards outlined under §10.255(2)(h) of the D.C. Ords.:

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 2. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use. 3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; and 6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 2 2. Summary of Common Tower Related Concerns / Issues

There are a number of issues that are commonly associated with the siting, operation, and maintenance of communication towers. Below is a summary these issues in the context of the FM radio tower proposed under CUP #2157.

Air navigation. The site is not within 5 miles of any public airport nor is there any privately operated airstrip within 3 miles. At the proposed height of 488’ feet, FAA notification is required. The applicant filed for and has received a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “determination of no hazard to air navigation”. The applicant has also received similar authorization from the WI Bureau of Aeronautics to construct the proposed tower at this location.

Fall-down radius. The fall-down radius is essentially the area around a tower that could be affected in the event that the tower fell down. The applicant has submitted a letter from a structural engineer regarding the “folding” design of the proposed tower in the event of a catastrophic fall down:

“Due to the slenderness of the guyed tower mast in relation to the tower’s height and considering the special factors of safety incorporated in the guys and their foundations, the expected failure mode would be buckling of tower mast leg members in the unlikely event of a collapse. Should gross failure of any one guy anchor occur, the outer guys anchored in the same row will prevent the tower mast from falling straight over. With this occurrence, the mode of collapse for this structure is expected to be a folding configuration with the majority of the tower mast falling within a radius from the mast base out to 25% of the tower height or 122 feet. Some limited portion of the mast and other scattered debris could be expected within a radius from the base out to 50% of the tower height or 245 feet. For any distance beyond this we would only expect some light debris and only a part of the mast under an extremely unusual set of circumstances.

Ice-fall radius. During the winter months, ice can build up on towers and subsequently melt and fall off the tower affecting the ground and structures in close proximity to the tower. Falling ice can drift further from the base of a structure due to strong winds, including “riding” down guyed wires, thus potentially impacting a wider area than that immediately around the base of the tower. Should the CUP be approved, the RF engineer’s report recommends that “ice breakers” be installed on the guyed wires to minimize the potential for ice-fall.

Visual aesthetics. This is a highly subjective issue and one of the most significant points of contention often associated with new communication tower requests. The tower would be visible from many residences in the vicinity. A petition signed by 46 individuals in opposition to the proposed tower was submitted at the January 25, 2011 public hearing, citing aesthetic impacts and concerns over negative impacts to property values and migratory bird and bat populations. Under FAA regulations, the proposed tower would need to be painted “international orange and white”, and require lighting (red incandescent or LED lights) at several intervals along the length of the tower.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 3 Negative impact on property values. The installation of a tall communications tower can potentially have a negative impact on neighboring property values. An objective and quantitative evaluation of this issue is beyond the expertise of county staff. Nonetheless, neighboring property owners often site concerns with loss of property value as a primary concern. The county ordinance standards for the granting of a conditional use permit does require that the town board and zoning committee make findings that, “the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use” [s.10.255(2)(h)2]. This particular standard is somewhat subjective and requires diligently balancing the rights and interests of property owners on both sides of an issue.

Migratory bird populations. Research has shown that communications towers can result in significant migratory bird mortality rates. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has submitted a set of communications tower siting guidelines that include recommendations to mitigate the negative impacts on migratory birds. Bird collisions with towers are affected by a number of factors, including location of towers within migratory “fly ways”, weather patterns, tower lighting, and the use of guyed wires. Additional research and consultation with outside experts may be needed to effectively ascertain the potential impact of the proposed tower on migratory bird populations.

Electromagnetic radiation. The issue of electromagnetic radiofrequency (RF) emissions is commonly raised in response to communication tower proposals. However, an evaluation of the issue is somewhat outside of the County’s jurisdiction given that there are no relevant County regulations; Department staff do not have the technical capabilities to evaluate and comment on this issue; and it is regulated and governed by the FCC through the federal licensing and permitting process. This is a relatively low- density rural / agricultural area, which should mitigate any negative affects associated with RF emissions. If so desired, the Committee/County has the option of referring specific questions to the County’s contracting RF engineering consultant, Evans Associates. Otherwise, the issue is deemed to be governed entirely by the FCC.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 4 3. Relevant Town / County Comprehensive Plan Policies

The following is a preliminary list of the relevant / applicable policies contained in the Town of Rutland Comprehensive Plan and the Dane County Comprehensive Plan. As per the comprehensive plan consistency requirement enumerated in state statutes and county ordinance, the committee must consider the proposed use in light of these plan policies and render a decision that is consistent with the adopted plans.

Town of Rutland Comprehensive Plan

The subject property is located in the town’s Agricultural Preservation Area. Town goals and objectives for the agricultural preservation area include preserving agricultural land, existing farm operations, and the rural character of the town.

The town’s overall land use goals and objectives include the following:

Goal 7 Land Use Create a pattern of development that fosters the rural character and agricultural land preservation and that minimizes potential conflicts between incompatible land uses.

Objectives:

1. Maintain the agricultural land base to the greatest extent possible. 2. Minimize the negative effects of incompatible land uses.

Relevant town plan policies include the following:

Policies (note: numbers below correspond to the policies as they appear in the town plan) 2. Use open space areas as buffers between incompatible land uses, to protect environmentally sensitive lands, or to compliment other land development. 3. New commercial development adjacent to residential developments shall provide adequate open space, buffers, and screening. 12. Require buffers between incompatible land uses to minimize potential negative effects.

The town’s policies on commercial development include the following:

2. In agricultural areas of the Town allow agricultural related commercial uses only if a rural location is required to serve farmers, and if it must be in proximity to a resource; if no prime agricultural land is used; and if wastewater can be adequately handled by a soil absorption system. 3. To limit any non-agricultural commercial or recreational use to small, rural- oriented businesses which provide services needed by residents of the town. Such uses must meet the following criteria prior to zoning approval:

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 5

a. Be consistent with agricultural policies for farmland preservation. b. Have access to a state or county highway. c. Shall not adversely affect the traffic capacity and safety of the highway. d. Provide a buffer between the commercial use and any adjacent non- commercial use. e. Not endanger the environment or groundwater of the area.

4. Encourage the provision of technology-based infrastructure such as high-speed Internet connections.

Town town’s policies on environmental protection include the following:

Goal 11 Natural Environment Protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive land from inappropriate use and/or development.

Objectives: 1. Minimize disruption to environmentally sensitive lands (e.g., wetlands, floodplains, recharge areas, riparian habitat, etc.).

Policies: 1. Identify and protect the unique natural resources such as: wetlands, woodlands, groundwater, and native prairies. 2. Protect scenic vistas from inappropriate development. 3. Ensure that floodplain areas are protected from development or filling to maintain their natural flood accommodation capacity. 4. Restrict development along stream corridors to protect riparian habitat, water quality, and aesthetics. 5. Protect rare and endangered species and maintain their habitat. 6. Support the efforts of landowners to keep natural areas from being developed by using conservation easements or other means.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 6 Dane County Comprehensive Plan

Utilities and Community Facilities Element

Telecommunications Policies & Programs 1. Encourage Dane County communities to adopt enforceable guidelines for siting and removing telecommunications facilities. 2. Strengthen consideration of aesthetics in the building of towers (e.g., education, design competition, exhibits). 3. Maximize coordination of telecommunication facility needs with existing structures, buildings, water towers, etc. 4. Adopt ordinance requiring feasibility study of alternatives before allowing new tower construction. 5. Because Internet communication has become necessary in the conduct of commerce and provision of services in the county, promote countywide wireless Internet service (WiFi). 6. Encourage exploration of municipally owned telecommunication facilities to furnish wireless service to all areas of the county.

Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Element

Land Resources B. Minimize encroachment and adverse impacts of utilities and transportation facilities on land and water resources in Dane County.

Wildlife Resources F. Before approving any changes in zoning, consider the impact on wildlife habitat, potential locations of rare plant and animal species and archeological sites.

J. Preserve and enhance wildlife habitats through cooperation on acquisition and management of wildlife habitat in Dane County, maintaining large areas of open space in the county, and minimizing the disturbance caused by development.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 7 4. Radio Frequency Engineering Summary & Recommendations

The county’s RF engineering consultant, Evans Associates, reviewed the proposed tower to determine compliance with the county communications tower ordinance. The analysis, completed by Ralph Evans, found that the proposal satisfies the minimum standards of the county’s tower ordinance.

The county’s RF engineering consultant recommends the following conditions, should the town board and ZLR committee approve the CUP application:

1. A copy of the FCC required radiation calculations should be provided according to Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 and its revisions. 2. A statement of compliance concerning the inspection of the erected tower by a registered professional tower engineer should be provided. 3. A statement from Magnum AND a professional tower engineer should be provided detailing the number and type of co-locaters that could be supported by the tower. The statement should also verify that the following minimum set of co- locators could be supported: a. Four 4-bay 150 MHz. antennas centered at 400 feet with 7/8” transmission line. b. Four Cellular/PCS antenna arrays (six antennas mounted on the tower without platforms) at 200 to 250 feet with six 7/8” transmission lines. If meeting this condition requires a tower with a greater visual impact, consideration should be given to mitigation measures such as using a solid rod tower for reduced face size. c. An equipment shelter should be used that can be expanded to house the equipment for these antennas. 4. A statement should be provided that the proponent and the tower erector will be responsible to install “ice breakers” and “preform clips” on the guy wires for extra safety8. 5. 10’ fences with razor wire should be installed to secure the guy anchors and tower base.

Should the committee ultimately decide to approve the proposal, the consultant’s recommendations should be included as enforceable conditions of approval on the conditional use permit.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 8 5. Preliminary Staff Analysis The proposed site is approximately 2,000 feet south of Old Stage Road. The property is adjacent to a significant woodland area to the southeast, farmlands to the west, and numerous rural residential properties to the east and north.

The property is located within one mile of two large tracts of publicly owned natural resource areas: the WI DNR-owned Badfish Creek State Wildlife Area (to the east), and the USFWS-owned Harvey’s Marsh Waterfowl Production Area. DNR and USFWS staff have expressed concerns with the potential impact of the tower on migratory bird species and waterfowl. USFWS has produced siting guidelines for communications towers that are intended to mitigate, to the extent possible, the potential negative impacts on migratory bird species. These guidelines have been provided to the committee for consideration.

As noted above, neighboring property owners have raised numerous concerns and objections to the proposal. Staff will continue to consult with outside experts and research the numerous issues raised by neighbors and others, including the potential impacts on migratory bird species and the nearby resource areas. Additional information and recommendations will be provided to the committee prior to consideration of the petition at the next work session.

As significant opposition is expected to be presented at the public hearing, and because the town has not yet acted, staff recommends postponement at the 3/8/11 meeting per the committee’s rules and procedures.

H:\Zoning\ZLR\Composite Reports\2011 Reports\CUP 2157 Files (FM Radio tower in Rutland)\Staff report Petition 10275 - CUP 2157 (FM Radio tower, sec 34 Rutland).doc 9 Oak Hill Road

Flint Road

Gallagher Lane

ÿÆA Lake Kegonsa Road Kegonsa Lake

Anthony Branch Fishery Area

HildrethRoad

Lake Kegonsa Road

Center Road

Oak Ridge Road Old Stone Road

Game Ridge Trail

R Badfish Creek

a Casara Road d State Wildlife Area

NorthUnion Road

ShadyWillow Road Old Stage Road

Proposed Tower (/14 US Fish&

Wildlife Area Union Dane Road Road Franklin

0850 1,700 3,400 Feet Legend Proposed Public Land (Existing) Petition 10275 Perennial Stream CUP 2175 Intermittent Stream ² Constructed Drainage Stoughton Farms Wetlands > 2 acres 624 Water Street Prairie du Sac, WI 53578

608.644.1449 phone 608.644.1549 fax

April 10, 2011

Town of Rutland Chairman Dale Beske [email protected]

SUBJECT: DANE COUNTY CUP #2157 WBKY FM TOWER/STOUGHTON FARMS

Dear Mr. Beske:

A number of questions have been posed by the Town of Rutland regarding our tower construction and rezoning application. In response to this we have compiled answers to these questions and provided supplemental information. A list of this information is as follows:

 WBKY - Rutland Tower Ordinance Review  WBKY – Dane County Ordinance 10.255 (2) (h) (1-6) Review  WBKY - Response to Chairman Beske Questions  WBKY - Zoning Drawings 04/08/2011  WBKY - Tower Photo Simulations 04/08/2011  WBKY - Adjacent Properties Figure

We expect that our response and supplemental information satisfies any outstanding questions. However, if additional clarification is required please let us know prior to our April 19th Town Meeting. Considering the time between now and then we would hope to receive any questions by next Thursday April 14th so we could try and prepare and issue information to the board prior to the meeting.

Sincerely,

Edge Consulting Engineers, Inc.

David Lyshek, P.E. Project Manager

Cc: Dane County Senior Planner Majid Allan, [email protected]

WBKY Board SubmitallCoverletter.doc 1 of 1 624 Water Street Prairie du Sac, WI 53578

608.644.1449 phone 608.644.1549 fax

WBKY BROADCAST TOWER TOWN OF RUTLAND ORDINANCE NO. 12.5 REVIEW

The following provides an outline of the related Rutland Ordinance. It has been formatted to sequentially follow the ordinance for ease of review. Comments with respect to our proposed project have been hi-lighted in red italicized font. The body text is initiated at Section 1 which addresses the findings and purpose of the ordinance. It then moves on to Section 7 which addresses the standards and conditions for evaluating a proposal under this ordinance.

SECTION 1 1) 1 Findings and Purpose of Ord. 12.5: We feel that our proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Rutland Tower Ordinance. a) Ensure that Town receives adequate information to properly evaluate We feel we have been compliant with this requirement. . b) Create a standard review process. – We have been following the standard review process. c) To accommodate communication companies while protecting public health, safety, and general welfare - We comply by meeting Federal and State reviews and requirements. There are general welfare benefits such as broadcast coverage for general lifestyle enhancement and information/entertainment, Emergency Alert System and Amber Alert service that accompanies broadcast, general emergency communication and public notice. Applicant has also had dialogue with local Law Enforcement Officials and Fire Chiefs and has pledged that during catastrophic events, the FM station would stand at the ready to provide extensive on-going broadcast assistance from their command centers. Documented community/government support has also been provided. d) To facilitate an appropriate pattern of tower sitings and avoid potential negative impacts. Although we would prefer to co-locate on an existing structure, none meet our elevation and location requirements required to avoid interference concerns. We comply by having selected a candidate with significant offsets to adjacent properties and the right-of-way. In addition, significant visual screening is available due to existing tree-lines and the tower has been located near an existing quarry. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes. e) Preserve the Towns remaining agricultural land use. – We comply. Although the proposed tower is on an agriculture property the majority of the development is on a fallow portion of the land and limited ground disturbance is anticipated. Following the installation of our tower the property shall continue to be used for agricultural purposes with our development occupying approximately .04% of the currently tilled field. f) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties. We comply having selected a site location that is offset from property lines, utilizes existing tree-line screening, and being located near the existing quarry.

SECTION 7 7) Changes to Zoning District Boundaries: a) Standards to consider I. Is the change in zoning consistent with Land Use Plan? Yes – the proposed zoning change is from one agricultural district to another (A-1 to A-2). The proposed parcel is 15.5 acres. 8.8 acres is currently fallow field which is where the tower base, equipment building, and (4) of the (6) guy anchors shall be located. The remaining 6.7 acres shall be continued to be harvested along with the adjacent fields. Only (2) guy anchors shall be located within this area. As a safety precaution they shall be located within a secured fence approximately 3’ x 22’ long (66 sqft each). This relates to only 0.04% of the 6.7 tillable acres being occupied by our installation. Not only is the zoning change consistent, but the future practices shall be consistent with ongoing activities.

RutlandOrdinance_ComplinaceStatement.doc 1 of 3 3/22/2011

II. Is the tower needed at the proposed site for the provision of wireless services? The proposed tower shall be for FM Broadcast purposes. In accordance with the Dane County ordinance provisions shall be made to accommodate additional communications co-location. III. Are preferred sites available? No – See Evans Report 1) Existing Tower Structures- None available due to limited height. 2) Town or school district lands None available with adequate space and within the non-interfering broadcast window. 3) Private lands where towers will not interfere with activities or aesthetics on the site. As described above, the proposed tower shall not substantially interfere with existing activities (agricultural) The selected location is considered a preferred site as aesthetic impacts are limited by existing wood lines, offsets to the right-of-way and adjacent properties as well as its close proximity to an existing quarry. 4) Residential area towers that would use camouflaging techniques: steeples, lights, etc. A residential area tower is not being proposed. IV. Whether the proposed structure would endanger health and safety due to failure or falling ice. Would the tower endanger health and safety (failure, falling ice) The remote location and code required design standards will ensure that there is not legitimate health and safety concern. A fall radius and design criteria letter prepared by ERI has also been provided. In accordance with the Evans study recommendations #4, ice breakers and preform clips shall be installed to address ice related concerns. V. Would the tower cause objectionable noise, glare, physical activity or effects that will impair peaceful enjoyment of neighboring properties? Remote location (360’+ to East PL, 400’ + to South PL, 2000’+ North to Old Stage Rd., 1300’ to West parent property line) and existing wood lines will ensure that these concerns are mitigated as much as practical. After initial construction site activities will typically be limited to a WBKY official visiting the site once per week to confirm equipment is accurately matching remote control readings. Related noise from the base building would primarily be limited to air ventilators and relate to less noise than a typical residential development. The tower is proposed to be a galvanized structure which is dull gray in color which typically limits glare. VI. The extent that sight lines from existing homes and roadways would be adversely affected. The remote location and existing wood lines to the south, east, and west will ensure that these concerns are mitigated as much as practical. The proposed tower has an estimated face width of 4 feet and therefore would be only a slender obtrusion. Photo simulations have been prepared to help demonstrate that site lines will not be adversely affected. VII. The extent that the tower will adversely affect aesthetics of natural areas. Edge Consulting completed FWS screening criteria and did not identify any concerns with respect to endangered species or habitat. The WDNR concurred with our findings. The proposed project shall be sited on an agricultural property with the majority of the development occurring on a fallow portion of the land. The total footprint of development is less than 1000 sqft. (600 sqft tower base, (6) anchors 66 sqft/each). Of the 15.5 acres less than 1.5% of the space is proposed for alteration. VIII. The extent to which the tower will be visible from lands owned by the WDNR, USFWS, Bass Lake, and Island Lake. The WDNR Anthony Branch land is located approximately 2.5 miles to the NW, The WDNR Bad Fish creek Wildlife area is located over .75 miles to the NE, the USFW land is located over .5 miles to the W, Bass Lake is located approximately 2.5 miles to the NE, Island Lake is located over 4 miles to the N. Due to the substantial offsets to these lands along with existing woodlines the base of the tower will not be visible from these locations. Although portions of the tower will be visible from some of these locations site lines shall not be adversely affected. Photo simulations have been prepared to help demonstrate this. IX. Approval will not be given if wetland filling is required. No Wetlands are located at the proposed site location. X. Additional factors the PC or Board deem relevant. None identified by the board. Possible considerations: Tower will have positive impact with respect to lifestyle enhancement in the form of information /entertainment. Avenue for emergency broadcast communication. Emergency Alert

RutlandOrdinance_ComplinaceStatement.doc 2 of 3 3/22/2011

System and Amber Alert implemented at a local broadcast tower. Meets FCC mandate that licensees maximize their facilities to the greatest extent possible to fully utilize available spectrum. b) Conditions: I. No graphic messages or advertising allows – Compliant, none proposed II. Fencing and locks to secure site – Compliant, shall meet recommendation #5 of the Evans report. III. Vegetative buffering must be provided to separate the facility from adjacent land uses unless the PC finds that the buffering is not necessary due to natural site features – Compliant: The proposed site shall be surrounded by a landscape buffer to the north to complement the existing natural screening which exists to the south, east, and west. IV. Tower to be gray – Compliant: Steps have been taken to providing a lighting system which utilizes a gray galvanized tower that complies with FAA lighting requirements. V. Tower and building/compound shall not be illuminated except to the extent required by FAA or other regulatory agency. FAA requires specific tower lighting requirements. No permanently illuminated light at the building structure is proposed. The building lighting shall be limited to use during maintenance events only. Light emanating from the building structure is less than typical residences. VI. Towers shall be set back from other structures, ROW, and property lines to meet the fall radius. Tower setbacks exceed the fall radius. The closest property line is over 315’ away. A Fall Radius and Design Criteria letter has been prepared by ERI. ERI identified a fall radius of 25% of tower height (122.25’) for the gross tower mast and 50% (244.5’) for additional debris. VII. Any equipment or building shall also be screened with a vegetative buffer. Landscape screening shall be installed as proposed in the site design and further complimented by site setting and existing tree lines. VIII. “No Trespassing” signs to be posted on all sides of the fencing. To be installed as required. IX. Other site design requirements the Board determines appropriate to minimize adverse impacts. None identified by Board. Possible considerations: No existing rustic roads in vicinity. Will not have frontage on a potential rustic road. Not in vicinity of existing multi-use trail, Glacial Drumlin Trail or River Trail. Not in vicinity of proposed Yahara River Trail or Koshkonong Creek Trail. X. If an antenna is being integrated with an existing structure, reduced requirements for items (i) thru (viii) may be considered by PC. Not Applicable XI. Tower owner shall provide performance bonds or demonstrate financial responsibility to ensure ability to facilitate tower removal. Will Comply. XII. Tower owner shall maintain insurance as specified. Tower owner currently maintains comparable insurance on all existing towers. Intent on complying.

RutlandOrdinance_ComplinaceStatement.doc 3 of 3 3/22/2011 624 Water Street Prairie du Sac, WI 53578

608.644.1449 phone 608.644.1549 fax

WBKY BROADCAST TOWER DANE COUNTY ORDINANCE 10.255 ORDINANCE REVIEW

The following provides an outline of section 10.255 (2) (h) (1-6) from the Dane County Ordinance. It has been formatted to sequentially follow this section of the ordinance for ease of review. Comments with respect to our proposed project have been hi-lighted in red italicized font.

10.255 (2) (h): Standards. No application for a conditional use shall be granted by the town board or zoning committee unless such body shall find that all of the following conditions are present:

1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; The remote location and code required design standards will ensure that there is not legitimate health and safety concern. A fall radius and design criteria letter prepared by ERI has also been provided. In accordance with the Evans study two safety recommendations have been made. This includes the installation of security fencing, and the installation of ice breakers (ice clips) and preforms. The proposed tower development shall be constructed with these features. The proposed tower base is proposed to be located remotely (over 6 football fields in length) away from the right-of-way. The proposed development footprint is relatively small (<1000 sqft) when comparing it to many residential developments. Due to limited site inspection and maintenance activities noise associated with the operation of the tower is typically very minor. The associated noise from the tower operation is not out of line with the surrounding developments. The noise levels are forecast to be less than a typical actively farmed field or residence, and pale in comparison to a quarry. The proposed location also capitalizes on natural screening and offsets to neighboring properties. The closest residential structure is over 5 football fields in length away. There are general welfare benefits such as broadcast coverage for general lifestyle enhancement and information/entertainment, Emergency Alert System and Amber Alert service that accompanies broadcast, general emergency communication and public notice. Applicant has also had dialogue with local Law Enforcement Officials and Fire Chiefs and has pledged that during catastrophic events, the FM station would stand at the ready to provide extensive on-going broadcast assistance from their command centers. Documented community/government support has also been provided.

2. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use; The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and the proposed tower development shall occupy approximately 0.04% of the currently tilled field. For the most part the property shall continue to be used in the same manner and therefore we do not foresee how these items will be substantially impaired or diminished. The siting advantages of existing screening and offsets help further mitigate such concerns.

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; As stated above the property is currently used for agricultural purposes and for the most part shall continue to be used in the same manner. Therefore we do not foresee how development or improvement of the surrounding properties will be substantially impeded.

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made; Single-phase power and telephone utilities are readily available within the parent parcel and right-of-way. This includes single-phase power which can be obtained without alteration. Access shall be conjoined with the existing turn-around at the Stoughton Farms development and as proposed will require

DaneCounty-10.255_ComplianceStatement.doc 1 of 2 3/22/2011

no additions that effect off-site properties. No significant grading changes are proposed at the site and therefore drainage related concerns are not considered significant.

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; and The limited site activities discussed above will also translate to no significant increase in traffic demand. Ingress and egress will co-join the existing turn-around at Stoughton Farms.

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The conditional use of the tower development shall comply with the proposed A-2 district requirements. The bulk requirements on setbacks and lot area shall be achieved.

DaneCounty-10.255_ComplianceStatement.doc 2 of 2 3/22/2011 Dear Rutland and Dane County officials and interested parties:

I want to make sure all of the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed. Those of us working on this application had put together responses to one set of Rutland questions plus maps and calculations on how little Ag land would actually be affected by the proposed tower. Then, the night before the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting another batch of questions came in. I was advised to just await further clarification at the meeting itself. To make sure everything is addressed, I’m attaching all of the questions I’m aware of. Please let me know if anything in this compilation has been missed or if additional clarification of any question(s) is needed. Thanks in advance. Dave

I noted a number of questions related to the tower height, power and coverage area. Dave Lyshek and I addressed those questions at the Dane County meeting and I am attaching our prepared text below. It may be helpful as Dave and I were both moving at a rapid pace to stay within the time allotted for statements. If you tried to take notes it would’ve been hard to keep up with. So, I'll start by attaching that text. (my responses throughout this questionnaire use this blue Comic Sans MS font)

Dave Magnum Dane County prepared text:

If you had a chance to look at the follow up letter I snail mailed to all residents who attended the first Rutland meeting you know that I am a very hands-on applicant.

During my 20 year career as an FCC licensee, I have built four other towers in other counties. I don’t send out an agent to speak on my behalf. I go out and talk to the land owners myself right from the get-go so people can talk right to the horse’s mouth.

My goal has been to make this process as transparent as possible. I have promptly followed up on any questions by Rutland Chairman, Dale Beske, to residents, and to questions by the Stoughton and Oregon Newspapers.

I am confident that we have worked very hard to both meet the letter and honor the spirit of all ordinances. The Evans Report has been forwarded to all of our engineers to make certain they are aware of all directives.

I currently operate ten broadcast towers in Wisconsin and have never had a single issue in my 20 years. I have a clean record with the FAA, State of Wisconsin Department of Aeronautics as well as all local authorities.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 1

The two best moments of this process for me so far, have been after the two Rutland meetings, when folks told me that although they oppose the tower, they feel I have conducted myself in a respectful manner. They encouraged me to not take all of the questioning personally.

And I don’t. As I said in the last Rutland meeting, folks in Rutland don’t know my work as a broadcaster from the “man on the moon.” That’s why I understand all of the questions.

In an effort to give folks some confidence that my co-workers and I do good work for our communities, and because there has been a lot of discussion about birds, I asked one of my co-workers if Necedah Wildlife Refuge would share their experience with my stations.

There are two letters in your packet. I could provide such letters from many organizations because my radio and TV stations serve the public in a wide array of areas and without prejudice.

Folks have asked why this Stoughton licensed radio station needs to send out a signal that 233,000 people can hear?

To be viable as a commercial radio station in this area we need to have the opportunity to reach 233,000 people, because, in reality only a small percentage of those 233,000 people will listen to WBKY.

In order to sell advertising, (which also gives us the wherewithal to provide other services to the public), we must grow a measurable audience from that same pool of potential listeners.

To succeed, I must have a signal, comparable in size to the other stations, in order to have a chance to build enough of an audience to attract advertisers. Furthermore, WBKY must remain a full Class A facility based on FCC license requirements.

Stoughton Fire Chief, Marty Lamers, (who is also President of the Dane County Fire Chiefs Association) was invited by Rutland Town Chair Dale Beske to attend the last meeting at which he spoke extensively.

He could not attend tonight due to a previously scheduled engagement, but I have sent to Majid, a copy of my answers about his appearance at Rutland to Seth Jovaag who is a reporter from the Oregon and Stoughton Newspapers.

One of the topics Chief Lamers spoke about addressed the reasons why this potential broadcast tower, should be built as tall as possible, as it relates to other potential co-location purposes.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 2

A related point: I have attempted to explain in the Rutland meetings that building a new radio station operation takes time. Job 1 is simply getting it on the air. While it will take years for this station to mature, we would from Day 1 be able to stand at the ready to aggressively assist in incidents like the 2005 tornado that Chief Lamers spoke of.

I will also say this: The sense of duty we at WBKY would feel to the residents of Stoughton about such incidents, we would also feel toward the residents of Rutland, Oregon, Brooklyn, Dunn, Pleasant Springs, Dunkirk, Christiana-all of the communities within close proximity to the WBKY tower.

Dave Lyshek Dane County prepared text:

We have been asked, as an example, why this tower shouldn’t be 350’ as opposed to 489’. While it could be, there would be several adverse impacts:

First of all, as was explained by Chief Lamers, everything except cellular equipment requires as much height as possible.

Second, if WBKY would be forced to reduce the FCC and FAA approved height of 489’ down to 350’ it would lose coverage to many thousands of people.

And lowering the height would mean significantly more power consumption.

Power consumption would need to more than double from twenty six hundred watts to almost 6,000 watts.

This could be compared to driving a gas guzzler car that only gets about 15 miles a gallon and fits less passengers, to one that fits more passengers and gets about 40 miles per gallon.

There would also be an energy consumption impact on the transmitter building. With the small transmitter a simple barn ventilation fan would be sufficient to cool the equipment.

To achieve 6,000 watts we would need to step up to a large 10,000 watt transmitter. This would require that the building be air conditioned which would consume many kilowatt hours of energy per month for typically eight months out of the year.

In addition, the large transmitter would need Three Phase power. We have spoken with Steve Schuett at Alliant Energy. The nearest Three Phase power is 2 ½ miles away from the proposed site. By running the small transmitter we only need Single Phase power which is already in place at Stoughton Farms.

Again, building the tower shorter would add up to a lot of waste.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 3

While I don’t expect, nor should you be concerned about the economics for Magnum Communications, I know you are concerned about anything that is wasteful. It would cost substantially more to build and maintain the much larger transmitter facility.

The smaller equipment needed is currently in operation in Portage and would simply be re- installed at the new proposed site.

RF engineers who build these systems have told us that they are confident you will clearly see how wasteful and downright foolish it would be to build the tower at less than the FCC and FAA approved height of 489’.

In this day and age we all need to be as green as possible. As the Evans report stated, (page 5, paragraph 2) reducing the tower height would have a minor visual effect thereby achieving a dubious benefit. The report also stated (page 9, paragraph 7) that cutting the tower below the 488’ level would seem to offer little or no commensurate visual impact benefit. Evans further states (page 4, paragraph 5) that the 488 height will prevent multipath distortion which is a challenge for IBOC digital FM radio channels.

As a practical matter, if a human being stands on the ground it is very difficult to discern the difference between 350’ or 489’. To give up 139’ of useable co-location space and the possibility to eliminate the potential need for another tower in the future would be short sighted.

As to environmental concerns: please note in your packets that we have received from the DNR a “No Effect determination.”

We received good news last week when the FAA granted our request to change from a painted tower to an un-painted tower. It is Rutland’s preference that the tower be a grey or blue colored surface and we were very pleased that the FAA agreed to make that change to a galvanized grey surface.

It is our hope that the Town of Rutland and Dane County will agree that we have worked hard to be not only transparent but also very respectful to everyone involved.

If you would drive out to the site yourself—we have diagrams and simulations here---you would see that the site we have proposed is next to an operating gravel pit. It is placed far back from the road in the corner of a field so as to reduce its visual presence to the greatest possible extent.

I have worked on a number of different projects over the years with many different applicants. I have never seen an applicant roll up his own sleeves like Dave Magnum has. He has cut no corners and in private is just as respectful of the process as you have witnessed. The glowing report from Evans and Associates is proof positive that very good and thorough work has been done here.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 4

As Chief Lamers correctly pointed out, all antenna systems on a tower must have buffer spaces between the systems so they don’t interfere with each other. A large amount of co-location space is also taken up for this purpose which is a key reason why maximizing available height is so important.

ZLR committee pictures of the five towers in Southern Dane range in height from 404' to 499' so this proposed tower fits the precedent of those previously approved.

The following questions have been prepared by the Town of Rutland and submitted via email from Chairman Dale Beske:

Questions on the Application

1. Distance to the Closest Residence

Page 3 of 3 of the application states that nearest residence is 3000 feet away. There are residences and structures closer than 3000 feet. We have two houses under 2640 feet owned by Gary Kershaw (about 1800), Chuck Burch (about 2200) and three (Kevin Shea, Bert Carr and MarkWethal all at about 2640 feet). There are several houses on Old Stage just to the east of the Kershaw property that are very close to 3000 feet. One future house could be as close as 1000 feet (if the Polakowskis build on their land as originally planned). The Stoughton Farm shed is about 2200 feet away.

This should be corrected in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so the ZLR can be aware of this correction.

As of 3/22/2011, Dane Co Zoning has received a map from Edge Consulting with the distances.

As of 3/22/2011, Dane Co Zoning has received a map from Edge Consulting with the distances. So this is resolved.

At the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting Dick Rodgers said he spoke with Majid Allan about the fact that when the Dane County application was filled out over the counter the Dane County Aerial Photography--GIS web site was incapable of seeing some houses tightly surrounded by trees. Dave Lyshek of Edge Consulting created their map using higher resolution photography. During the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence that this information was accurate.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 5

2. Minimum Height of Tower

Question 3 on the unnumbered typewritten page attached to application states that towers of 200 feet or 300 feet would be too short. The answers given on the application state that this would bring the tower below the prescribed 100 meters above average terrain level for a Class A FM station.

a. Where is this required?

We assume the FCC requires this, but we will need to contact them or find a consultant to provide this answer.

Kevin Shea points out in on the top of page 3 of the attachment to his email of 2/27/11 that WORT-FM operated in Madison for years with a tower of less than 100 feet on Bedford Street in Madison. He also notes in the same section of that document that 492 feet is the maximum height for Class A FM.

b. Could the station be changed to Class B (or some other such class) and then operate on a shorter tower or could it just operate at a lower height as Class A?

Page 5 of Evans report notes that 315 feet is the minimum for Class A FM license. Page 6 of Evans report notes that a reduction in height to 315 feet (35% reduction) has a minimal effect on the number of households served – from about 87,000 down to about 80,000 (less than a 10% drop). While a shorter tower would require more power, it would be less of a visual intrusion on neighboring properties.

Kevin Shea points out in his 2/27/11 email attachment that the minimum power cannot be less than 100 watts.

This should be referred to an independent tower consultant.

At the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting Chairman Beske pointed out that his research shows that a Class B station is actually a larger station than a Class A station. Attorney Steve Ritt stated at that same meeting that there is a myriad of criteria that the FCC factors in to licensing of various stations. When asked about the ability to pick and choose he simply said, “it doesn’t work that way.”

3. List of rejected alternate sites.

We have verbally heard of rejected potential sites, but the applicant should answer the question.

This should be corrected in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so both the Town and the ZLR can be aware of this correction.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 6

There was one potential site that was eventually abandoned—the property now owned by Kevin Shea. After Don Benson sold his brother, David's, property to Mr. Shea, I then met with Dawn and Terry George, then Bert Carr, then David Soldwedel and Sue Wollin. A real estate agent also confirmed that the Kolitz property (now owned Mrs. Polakowski) was for sale. In addition, I received a call from Terry Lund who said he had property that would potentially work for the project. Ultimately, we determined that the proposed Stoughton Farms (Soldwedel/Wollin) site near the gravel pit, situated far away from the road with trees on two sides would be most favorable. A list of potential candidates is provided below.

Siting issue

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 7

1. The maps with search rings presented thus far only show a small portion of Rutland. a. Why not show a map with Stoughton in the center and show an area of say 10 miles N, S, E and W of the city?

It would appear that circles would diverge again on the other side of Stoughton.

This should be answered in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so both the Town and the ZLR can be aware of this correction. b. Also, it not clear how the circles should be interpreted, as one would expect the tower would generate a circle that would overlay those circles as well.

This is a question for an independent tower consultant.

At the 3/23/2011 meeting, Dave Lyshek showed a color map which covered a larger area. The circles were identified as specific Lake Geneva and Milwaukee stations among others. He offered to send this map to the town electronically. This question can be resolved by sending the map electronically to both the Town and to the ZLR.

Here is the attached map that Chairman Beske referred to:

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 8

During the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence that the window is indeed limited.

2. Since the target is Stoughton, why not a tower in Stoughton with a frequency that would work on a site there?

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 9

This would not necessarily be a move of the existing Class A FM station but the creation of a smaller station serving the stated intended market of Stoughton.

This is a question for an independent tower consultant.

I believe Chairman Beske stated at the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting that his research confirmed that such lower power stations are reserved for non-commercial use. This goes back to Attorney Steve Ritt’s comment a few questions back that the FCC doesn’t allow picking and choosing.

3. Is this really a Stoughton station, or yet another Madison station?

The tower at 487 feet would reach a market of over 200,000 people. There are only about 12,500 people in Stoughton.

Is this really a Stoughton station, or yet another Madison station?

This should be answered in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so both the Town and ZLR can be aware of this answer.

At the 3/23/2011 meeting, it was stated by representatives of Magnum that the station was ’licensed to Stoughton’. It was also stated that it was hard to know whether the advertising would be for Stoughton area businesses or Madison businesses. If you agree with the above paraphrasing of the discussion at the 3/23 meeting, then this question can be considered resolved. If you disagree, please supply an answer.

The tower is specifically licensed to Stoughton, and as mandated by the FCC we are physically required to be within a certain geographic distance of the City of license and provide a certain level of population coverage to it. It is demonstrated in the Longley-Rice coverage maps presented in the Evans Report that we achieve this and that the heart of coverage includes Stoughton and the surrounding rural community. We were specifically asked what percentages of advertisements would be from Stoughton businesses and what percentage from Madison businesses. Attorney Steve Ritt conveyed that we can’t know in advance what the percentages would turn out to be.

4. The antennas on the tower are listed as non-directional.

Would a directional antenna change the characteristics of the tower and the siting possibilities for the tower?

This is a question for an independent tower consultant.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 10

This application is for the re-location of the WBKY station from Portage to Stoughton. WBKY currently operates an omni-directional facility which is consistent with this application.

Town Comp Plan Issues

1. Is there a split available?

The Town Comprehensive Plan requires that a split be present to site a communications tower (Goal 6 Ag Preservation District, Policies Point 7.b, on Page 2-6).

This will require review of the records by the Plan Commission.

The last draft of the spreadsheet prepared by the PC in November shows there is a split available.

It is understood that the Town has verified that a split is available.

2. Typical deed restrictions.

The Town will typically require a side agreement prohibiting applications for other CUPs without Town board approval.

A deed restriction for no residential development would typically also be needed, which could be removed when and if the tower were removed or the CUP dropped.

Yes, I respect this provision and understand it.

Town Tower Ordinance Questions

1. Color of tower

The ordinance calls for galvanized/mottled gray/possibly blue on page 5, point 7(b) (iv).

This is in direct conflict with FAA intention to make the tower as conspicuous as possible. Since the initial hearings, Magnum has applied to the FAA to allow an unpainted tower. This was submitted 2/23/2011 as Notice of Proposed Constructions or Alteration Case 2011-AGL-1761- OE and project Name MAGNU-000168192-11. The FAA accepted this request for change in a letter 2/28/11. It appears there is a tradeoff, though: The unpainted (galvanized surface) tower would require white blinking lights during the day and red blinking lights at night. The previously proposed alternating orange and white tower would require only the red lights at night.

This should be considered by the Plan Commission.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 11

In the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting, Chairman Beske said I had not made it clear that an un-painted tower would need to be lighted during the day.

Actually, tower lighting was referred to via e-mails in January between Mrs. Polakowski and me in which others including Chairman Beske and Majid Allan were copied.

The topic was then addressed in the Evans Report on page 8, paragraph 3.

Then, at the 2/28/11 Rutland meeting I handed Chairman Beske the just granted FAA change to an un-painted tower which he then read verbatim.

This standard FAA requirement is one which is required of all towers taller than 200’ to ensure visibility to aircraft.

What has been so difficult for Dave Lyshek, Dick Rogers and me is how we've only been able to make lateral movement with this application because questions that we thought were answered long ago keep coming back as new questions.

The FAA originally suggested a painted tower with red lights at night. When we became aware that the preference was for an un-painted tower we made that application and it was granted.

2. The ordinance has a preference for unlighted towers, except as required by FAA.

This tower would be lighted. See page 5, point 7 (b) (v).

This is also an observation, but should be considered by the Plan Commission.

It appears that the tower lighting requirement is one of the major sources of concern for the neighbors.

It is apparent that the Town Ordinance does not forbid the installation of a tower over 200’. As mandated by the FAA such towers need to meet aircraft visibility requirements which include lighting standards.

3. Visibility from 3 wildlife areas (2 in the Town, one just across the Town border in Rock County must be considered).

See page 4, point 7 (a) (viii). This should be considered by the Plan Commission. The ordinance requires that the PC take into consideration the effect the tower will have on the aesthetics of natural area and the effect on the view from F&WS and DNR lands.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 12

The FW&S has provided a map that shows the area from which the tower would be visible, assuming no bare ground (not otherwise obstructed by trees or buildings.). This map shows the tower would be visible from all of the F&WS and DNR lands in the southern half of the Town, and probably 75%-80% of the Town overall.

Jim Lutes included the comment below when he submitted the information referenced in the two paragraphs above:

A VERY important caveat to this model is that it assumes BARE GROUND conditions and as such does not take into account things such as tree height or building obstruction.

The WDNR Anthony Branch land is located approximately 2.5 miles to the NW, The WDNR Bad Fish creek Wildlife area is located over .75 miles to the NE, the USFW land is located over .5 miles to the W, Bass Lake is located approximately 2.5 miles to the NE, Island Lake is located over 4 miles to the N. Due to the substantial offsets to these lands along with existing wood lines the base of the tower will not be visible from these locations. Although portions of the tower will be visible from some of these locations site lines shall not be adversely affected. Photo simulations with vantage points from these wildlife areas as well as the County border have been prepared to help demonstrate this.

Dane County CUP Standards

1. Dane County Ordinance Section 10.255 (2) (h) (1-6) should be reviewed.

Chapter 10 is the Zoning Ordinance, and this particular section deals with the issuance of Conditional Use Permits. This is where the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors comes into play. This is also where the question of full use and enjoyment of nearby properties comes into play as well. Each of these should be voted on individually by the Plan Commission and Board.

A review of this portion of the Dane County Ordinance was completed. It is our belief that we meet a reasonable interpretation of it. A summary of this review with associated comments is attached.

Other Concerns

1. Similar Structures

We have asked for, but not received, a list of similar height towers in Dane County, or the area in general. It would be helpful to all to see what a 487 foot tower actually looks like. The required lights would not be small, and seeing an actual, similar-sized tower might help us judge how intrusive the tower and the lights on it would be.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 13

This should be answered in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so both the Town and ZLR can be aware of this answer.

It turns out that the ZLR committee had asked the same question of the planning department. An 8-page document was sent out. This cover page identifies several towers of approximately the same height in southern Dane County:

I have also learned that the tower near Hwy 51 and Dyreson Road, just north or northwest of Lake Kegonsa, in the Town of Dunn, is 299 feet tall.

During the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting it appeared that the Planning Commission was satisfied with the list of identified towers.

2. What is the previous abandoned application in Oregon #1276118?

This was referred to in the FCC permit, but I cannot locate it presently. Dale Beske will contact the FCC.

This number coincides with the FCC registration for this proposed project.

3. Is this tower needed for Dane Com?

It was mentioned at the Town Public Hearing that Stoughton Fire Chief Marty Lamers had stated that this tower was needed for Dane Com. He has not stated that this tower is needed by Dane Com. While it is true that any tower of this height would be useful for a County wide system, this specific tower has not been identified as critical to the system. The vendor for Dane Com

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 14

has just been chosen, and the final design will occur once that vendor is on board and up to speed. That is a decision for the vendor to make while doing the final design, which has not yet started.

The Town Chair sent an email to John DeJung and Rich McVicar of Dane County Emergency Management asking if the tower would have any positive or negative impacts on the Dane Com system. His response, dated 3/8: ______Chairman Beske,

Thank you for your email. We are aware of the proposed WBKY tower, having been advised by the county's planning department and also having been contacted by Dave Magnum.

Harris Corporation proposed and contracted to deploy all six system sites at existing towers. The County's agreement with Harris provides for final design work to occur between now and June, with build out happening in time for a fall 2012 conversion. System changes could occur due to action by the governing board (established by resolution 88), local funding of enhancements, and/or other changes agreed to between the County and Harris. Although we expect the signal coverage in Stoughton to meet contracted levels, there is some interest to look into ways of achieving even higher levels of coverage. We have asked Harris to comment on any potential usefulness of the proposed WBKY tower as well as other existing sites around Stoughton. We will also ask Harris to explain if there's any way the proposed tower might interfere with DaneCom. The Harris program management and engineering teams are just coming together now, so days or even weeks will likely pass before we learn what Harris thinks about the proposed Rutland site.

We can remain in touch and share information as we receive it. Please feel free to contact us anytime.

Rich McVicar, ENP Technical Services Manager Dane County Public Safety Communications 210 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Rm 109 Madison, WI 53703-3342 ______

County Supervisor Denise Duranczyk provided this information regarding DaneCom tower sites: ______You can go to http://countyofdane.com/committees/contracts.asp to find the Harris contract with the county. In attachment A-1 on page 9 is the list of recommended placements for the towers. The governance committee will be reviewing the placements over the next month. ______

Bottom line, need or lack of need for the proposed tower by DaneCom is not yet known, but apparently the initial design does not assume the tower is needed.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 15

Page 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Evans Report addresses possible co-location uses of this potential tower. Evans refers to this proposed site as “an excellent site for other public safety and Internet initiatives known to be proceeding in Dane County.”

4. Many concerns have been raised about declining property values.

Magnum presented several examples where urban development has surrounded previously rural towers. Multiple neighbors stated that they would not have bought nor would they build near the rural tower.

The Town will pose this question to the Town Assessor.

Here is the email exchange: ______Hi Dale,

There are very few sales that show towers have a great affect on the market for real estate. I generally give a negative locational adjustment to properties within a half a mile of a tower, usually -5 to -15 percent. Towers and other commercial structures affect homes greater than $300,000 in value more than they do less expensive homes. This is based on my experience and educational courses I've attend over the years.

Thank you, Greg Gardiner

On 3/13/2011 4:27 PM, Dale Beske wrote: Hi Greg:

The Town of Rutland has received a zoning petition to change the zoning on 15 acres and issue a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of 487 foot FM radio tower. At that height, the tower would need to be painted in alternating strips of red and white and lit at night with steady and blinking lights, OR left a grey galvanized color with blinking lights both day and night. Given the height, the tower will be widely visible. The state capitol is under 300 feet tall, and the tower just north of the Village of Oregon (between 14 and MM) is about the same height. By comparison, there are towers on the west side of Madison that are over 1000 feet tall. This is in a very rural area along the south edge of the town.

Many residents in the Town have raised questions about the tower and it impact on the Town.

One of those questions has to do with property values. Several residents have stated that they would not have purchased their properties had there already been tower there. One person who bought an adjacent lot (~50 acres, half wooded) just before the application was filed has stated that they will not build and will need to sell their parcel (probably at a loss) if the tower is

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 16

approved.

Are you aware of any studies, both pro and con, that have considered the impact of lighted towers on nearby residential property values?

Are you aware of any cases were property values (either for assessment purposes or for mortgage appraisal valuations) have gone down as a result of a large tower being built nearby (within say a mile or less)?

Thanks for any information you may be able to offer.

Dale Beske Chair, Town of Rutland

At the 2/28/11 Rutland meeting Chairman Beske stated, "let's just say the entire township fell in value by 50%, the levy limit would still stay the way it is and the mill rate would double to compensate for that." Dave Lyshek, Dick Rodgers and I were quite taken back by this statement. So, we were relieved by the significantly reduced number given by Greg Gardiner.

I had met Greg a couple times when he did two home appraisals for me over the years in Pacific Township. I called him about the proposed tower site and answered his questions regarding tree lines, distances to houses etc. Greg told me that since the Polakowski home does not exist he can’t say if it would be affected. If it is built and would be affected he said it would likely be on the 5% end of his 5-15% estimate.

In addition, as an example, we would like to bring your attention to one specific property identified by Dane County as being a similar structure. This is the WIBA tower on S. Fish Hatchery Road (#5 on the County Map). According to FCC registrations there are actually (1) 433’ FM tower and (2) 193’ AM towers with constructed dates identified as 1988. Within the last 7 years substantial residential development has occurred. Within a distance of approximately 2,300 feet 77 single family homes with assessed values ranging between $300,000 and $680,000 have been built. In addition, 23 condominiums have been developed within a similar distance, which have assessed values around $280,000. It is apparent that people have not been shy with respect to setting up residence in the vicinity of the existing towers. Although we have heard the argument that this is a more urban development, we still consider this as being worth consideration. Furthermore, these towers were constructed during 1988, when this location was predominantly rural. It is apparent that residential development during the past 7

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 17

years or 20 years has not been stymied by these towers. Therefore, we do not consider the above noted perceived concerns as being entirely accurate. An exhibit demonstrating residential growth around these towers follows.

5. Many concerns have been raised about aesthetics.

While the tower has been set back from the road a considerable distance by the proposer, and while the base station would be concealed by trees, the tower itself, at 487 feet, could not be concealed by trees.

Light pollution for amateur astronomers was raised as a concern.

Tower lights, whether steady or blinking, would be visible every night for many residents.

Additional antennas collocated in the tower could make it more visible than the photo simulations.

The neighboring Town of Dunkirk has sent a letter noting that the tower will visible for many of its residents, asking that we consider the impact on them as well when making this decision.

This is an issue to be reviewed by the Plan Commission.

The Rutland Ordinance does not unreasonably forbid the construction of towers or require that they shall not be visible. A location has been selected that limits aesthetic related concerns. We do not dispute that a tree line will not block the view of the tower in its entirety from every location. However, many of the surrounding residential properties are developed on wooded lots and from the residence significant screening will be provided. The figure developed to display the adjacent property structures reveals that many of the residences back up to or are virtually surrounded by trees in the direction of the proposed tower.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 18

6. Why not place the tower in an area already being used for other utilities?

There have been suggestions that an area already in use for other utilities be used, such as the new ATC ROW instead of this site.

This is a general siting question that is more or less covered by prior questions.

As previously demonstrated there is a limited siting window available for this Class A FM radio station. Within this siting window a location which capitalizes on several existing features was selected in an effort to limit aesthetic related concerns.

7. Existing towers

There have been suggestions that existing towers be used, such as the WMGM FM tower just north of Oregon at 1975 County Road MM (conflicting information found indicating 500 feet or 557 feet) and a tower near Evansville at 482 foot tower (WWHG-Fm).

Why not the Mandt Tower? This is a question for the independent tower consultant.

This is a general siting question that is more or less covered by prior questions.

As previously demonstrated there is a limited siting window available for this Class A FM radio station. Page 5, paragraph 3 of the Evans Report states: “There are no known FCC registered towers within this area…”

8. Med Flight Flight Patterns

The question of interference with UW Hospital MedFlight flight patterns was raised. The FAA has approved this site.

It appeared at the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting that the Planning Commission does not question the FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.”

9. Benefit to Rutland

It was pointed out that there would be no economic benefit to Rutland and its residents to offset the negative impacts. It appears any benefit would go to Stoughton or Portage.

One of the selling points has been emergency notifications such as Amber Alerts and storm warnings. It seems that this part of Dane County is already well covered in this area. Plus, there is now Reverse 911 Technology which helps provide the same function.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 19

Marty Lamers pointed out there would be a better chance of local coverage from a local station. Magnum has made a commitment to make the station available to local officials during an emergency.

The studio only has to be located within 25 miles of the tower.

Would there be any economic benefits to the Town or its residents?

I am pleased to be able to answer this question in writing because during the Rutland meetings when I would start to answer it by bringing up some of the work my stations do for other communities I was shut down with comments like: “take your good work someplace else.” The Necedah Wildlife letters seemed to be dismissed out of hand. The fact is, my co-workers and I work very hard to serve our communities:

AM 1400 WRDB is one of our Magnum group stations licensed to Reedsburg: Tune in to United Fund Radio Auction

Volunteers a huge part of radio auction's success

 By Ken Leiviska, Times-Press | Posted: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:00 am |

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 20

Jolene Westerman, left, has been volunteering at the United Fund Radio Auction for more than a decade. Terri Douglas, right, said she has been part of the event’s large volunteer crew for more than 20 years. Ken Leiviska, Times-Press

There's no stopping the United Fund Radio Auction each January in Reedsburg.

Even though nobody is paid a dime to help organize and run the event, the annual auction - in its 58th year - usually collects enough money in one week to greatly assist the financial needs of local organizations all year.

This year, more than 300 kind-hearted people are volunteering hours of their time for the auction, which wraps up this morning at the Reedsburg VFW Post. Those people are talking live on the air (and local cable television), taking phone calls for people bidding on items, running bid sheets and typing up item descriptions.

Their experience and memories vary, but the reason they volunteer seemed to share a common thread. For a closer look at some of the volunteers, see page 7.

Jeannine Mueller

Position: Event coordinator. Experience: Decades.

Volunteers because: "To whom much is given, much is required. To whom much more is given, much more is required. I live by that. It's not what you get, it's what you give. I don't do this to get anything, I do it to give what I can."

Memories: "Every day is special."

Other thoughts: "I just don't think there's another place in the United States that could pull this off. I really don't. As far as I'm concerned, Reedsburg is the city of volunteers."

Kay Daley

Position: Answers phones. Experience: About 20 years.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 21

Volunteers because: "It's a good way to give back to the community. As a retired teacher, I believe that's very important ... I was on the United Fund Board many years ago and that's probably why I got started."

Memories: "People will call in, say their name and then spell it. But many times I'll already know how to spell it because I taught them ... Lots of times I'll end up talking on the phone with them for a little bit."

Other thoughts: "I've never heard of a community doing something like this before. It gets the whole area involved."

Nancy Manion

Position: Types item descriptions. Experience: 6 years.

Volunteers because: "You get to see people come in here that you don't normally see."

Memories: "I remember the first auction. That was a long time ago."

Kelly Mittlesteadt

Position: Types item descriptions. Experience: 4 years.

Volunteers because: "I did it because she (her mother, Nancy Manion) did it. And also, where I work they give personal time to go out in the community to volunteer."

Memories: "I remember my Saturdays as a kid listening to the auction."

Terri Douglas

Position: Answers phones. Experience: More than 20 years.

Volunteers because: "Just to help the community. It's a great cause. All the money comes back to the community, which is the best part."

Memories: "When it was a smaller community, everyone knew each other."

Jolene Westerman

Position: Answers phones. Experience: More than a decade.

Volunteers because: "It's a great community effort for more than just a few people."

Memories: "Back in the old days it was even more of a social event. There would be times when someone would call and I'd have to tell them I needed to stop talking so I could take another call."

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 22

And, here’s another fundraiser we just donated time for and worked on, this one for Portage:

Our Magnum Radio and TV stations do significant public service work on an on-going basis. In the La Crosse region, another popular annual event that has been held for 12 years is the Coulee Region Humane Society Telethon.

Back to the subject of broadcasting severe weather and other emergency information: Most people consider their health and well-being to be their most valued possession. We anticipate that like our other stations, many people would derive many types of positive benefits from this tower for many years. If, however, the emergency services that have the capacity to emanate from this proposed tower help just one Rutland resident preserve a limb or even their life,

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 23 wouldn't that in and of itself be considered a valuable economic benefit to the people of Rutland? Please review notes sent to Seth Jovagg of the Oregon and Stoughton newspapers regarding comments from Stoughton Fire Chief Marty Lamers to the Rutland Planning Commission:

------Forwarded message ------From: Seth Jovaag Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Chief Lamer's at 2/28/11 Rutland Plan Comm Mtg To: Dave Magnum

HI Dave,

I think I've got everything. Haven't spoken to Lamers yet, but expect to do so early next week.

Thanks for all the info!

Seth Jovaag Reporter - Verona Press and Oregon Observer w) 608-835-6677 c) 608-843-7384

NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (18 U.S.C. 2510-2521), and is legally confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Dave Magnum wrote: Seth, Okay, here’s the additional information I said I’d provide to you about the 2/28/11 Rutland Planning Commission meeting: Rutland Town Chair, Dale Beske, asked Stoughton Fire Chief Marty Lamers to appear before the Rutland Planning Commission. He did so because at the Rutland Town Meeting (2/17/11) I conveyed that I had received a call from Stoughton Mayor, Donna Olson and Chief Lamers about the possibility of co-location of the new Dane County Interoperable system “DaneCom” on this potential radio tower. Chief Lamers, as you may know, is also President of the Dane County Fire Chiefs Association so he represents all Dane County Fire Chiefs on the panel making decisions about the plan and implementation of DaneCom. Chief Lamers said that at this point there is a preliminary design for six existing tower sites that are targeted for use by DaneCom. He said that if the tower proposed in Rutland is built that it could be looked at as a possible site for co-location of either a complete or partial set of antennas for the DaneCom system. He said that the South-East corner of Dane County does have some coverage issues compared to the rest of the county so they are looking at other existing towers including one on Deerson Road. He said Dane county is looking at existing towers because if the county would have to build a tower site it would cost approximately $700,000. He pointed out that if DaneCom can instead co-locate on an existing tower it would save taxpayers an enormous amount of money. He was then asked by a resident if cell towers could be used for DaneCom instead. He responded by saying that cell towers aren’t tall enough. He explained that there needs to be proper separation of equipment on towers so that equipment doesn’t cause interference to other equipment. He said if this tower was built at nearly five hundred feet and if the county used it they would want to be as high up as possible right below the FM antenna because the taller up they are the better coverage they get. He said

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 24 the preliminary DaneCom system plan for South-East Dane would use towers from Verona and Rockland which are quite a ways away. Chairman Beske asked about the deadline for DaneCom to be operational and Chief Lamers said the Federal mandate is that it must be up and running by the end of 2012. (Seth, I was told by Dane County 911 of the DaneCom presentation to the panel and did attend that meeting on 2/23/11 so I was already familiar with the points outlined by Chief Lamers. At the 2/23/11 meeting there was a lot of discussion about the special two-way radio needs of Firemen as they go into burning buildings and how crucial it is that the radio signals are strong enough to penetrate buildings of various construction types). Chief Lamers again spoke later in the meeting and said WBKY isn't just about the city of Stoughton. He said in 2005 a tornado came through North of Stoughton in the townships of Dunn, Pleasant Springs, Dunkirk and Christiana. That he was the Incident Commander and how helpful a radio station like the one proposed could have been as a tool to his and other agencies in getting information out to the public. How the cell phone system, the phone system and cable systems all went down because of the tornado. Not because the wind blew them down but because everybody was trying to use those systems all at once and that when those systems get over-loaded they shut themselves down. He told Rutland residents that he received commitment from me that I would make 95.9 FM WBKY available to be utilized for such emergency purposes in the future--that we would broadcast directly from the command center. In such an emergency I would feel that same sense of duty towards Oregon, Brooklyn and other communities within close proximity of our tower site. Again, Seth, along with the comments of Chief Lamers, a key development at the Rutland Planning Commission meeting was my being able to give Chairman Beske the document from the FAA showing that Rutland’s preference for an un-painted tower had been approved (I previously e-mailed you the FAA document). Finally, please confirm that you are also in receipt of the No Effect determination from the DNR.

Regards, Dave

As Chief Lamers pointed out, there is a possibility that this tower could prevent Dane County from having to build one of their own, thereby saving Dane County taxpayers of which Rutland residents are a part.

Stoughton Police Chief Leck and Oregon Police Chief Pettit have also expressed their support for our application:

------Forwarded message ------From: "[email protected]" To: "Allan, Majid" Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:33:04 -0600 Subject: FW: Chief Lamer's at 2/28/11 Rutland Plan Comm Mtg

Dear Mr. Allan,

I am writing this e-mail in support of the Magnum Communications tower in the Town of Rutland. I fully concur with Stoughton Fire Department Chief Marty Lamers comments regarding the potential uses of both the radio tower structure and the FM Station. In the event of an emergency, the ability to get real time information out to the public through an FM broadcast source could be an extremely valuable resource. Also, the potential to use this site for public safety radio infrastructure improvements is also equally important. These potential infrastructure improvements could have a far greater impact then to just the Stoughton area but to the entire south-central and southeastern portion of Dane County as well.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 25

Please feel free to share my comments.

Gregory W. Leck Chief of Police Stoughton Police Department 321 S. Fourth StreetStoughton, WI 53589 (608) 873-3374 [email protected]

------Forwarded message ------From: Chief To: "Allan, Majid" Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:22:25 -0600 Subject: Magnum Tower

Mr. Allan

I agree with both Chief Lamers and Chief Leck the construction of the proposed tower in the Town of Rutland has the potential to provide public safety departments in the region critical communication coverage from FM radio signal and potentially for public safety communications. This area of the county currently has limited coverage for our current public radio system. The Oregon area would clearly benefit from the addition of the proposed tower from a public safety stand point.

Chief Doug Pettit Oregon Police Department Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from U.S. Cellular

The fact is, tower facilities such as the one we are proposing provide opportunities for new or enhanced services. See memo below:

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 26

As to potential employment, I have been asked many questions right down to whether future employees would own houses or rent apartments. It would be wrong of me to give answers based on conjecture. Other than Gary Kershaw asking me about potential carpentry work I can’t say which Rutland residents might apply for jobs with WBKY because we have not yet sought applications. Is there potential for WBKY to employ a person or persons from Rutland? Yes, of course.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 27

While I don’t have a crystal ball and refuse to make blanket statements I can state that my experience as a broadcaster over 33 years (20 as an owner- operator) has shown me that radio stations can play a very positive role in many ways in the communities they serve. E. David Locke, President of McFarland State Bank, supports our application:

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 28

10. Inviting Additional Development of Towers in Town

Would there be a cascading effect – as more towers appear, it may be harder to fight any other similar development in the future. Could this make Rutland a blighted area as a result of the number of towers?

It is clear that the Town of Rutland has made it a focus and invested substantially in addressing tower siting concerns. There is a well detailed ordinance in place which is designed to guard against the proliferation of tower structures. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dane County Ordinance our proposed tower would be designed to accommodate co-location in an effort to avoid unnecessary tower structures.

11. Is radio obsolete?

The future of radio technology – will it all be wireless internet or satellite in the near future. Technology revolutions happen fast – see aol.com, Borders Bookstore, movie rental businesses, Polaroid cameras and film cameras in general, et c.

Probably more of a rhetorical question.

In the first Rutland meeting it was suggested by a resident that “Radio is a dinosaur” and that my stations would be bankrupt within a short period of time. Dave Lyshek, Dick Rogers and I were quite taken back when in the next Rutland meeting, Chairman Beske exacerbated this suggestion by comparing Radio to AOL, Borders Bookstore and Polaroid cameras.

As to the viability of Radio, please see the letter below from Michelle Vetterkind, President of the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association:

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 29

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 30

Evaluation of the financial or technical viability of a development appears to be outside of the scope of the tower ordinance. We believe that the only reasonable grounds for this to be a legitimate concern would be with respect to decommissioning of the tower if it were abandoned. With the requirement of escrow filing for decommissioning costs (I have been told by a tower erector that

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 31

demolishing and hauling away this particular potential tower would cost between $5,000 and $8,000) we feel the only viable concern has been addressed.

12. Removal of Lands from A1-EX

Does this meet the higher standard in County Ordinances 10.123 for CUPs in A1-EX district?

This would need to be considered by the Plan Commission.

We have a joint proposal to rezone the existing property from A1-EX to A2 and to obtain the CUP for the tower. As discussed above in our review of Dane County Ordinance Section 10.255 (2) (h) (1-6); it is our belief that we meet a reasonable interpretation of it. Furthermore the proposed re-zoning will not substantially impair current agricultural use or agricultural use on surrounding properties.

13. Impact of this tower being visible for many miles?

There is a conflict between our ordinance (calling for towers to be as inconspicuous as possible) and the FAA wanting anything over 200 feet to be as conspicuous as possible.

The way that this has been described to me over the years and at seminars is that the FAA needs towers to be conspicuous enough to offer adequate safety to air traffic. As conspicuous as possible (as stated above) would utilize fluorescent pinks or greens and much brighter and/or more lights. In my experience the FAA is very cognizant of the need to both make air travel safe and minimize visual impact on the ground to the greatest possible extent. For example, tower lights are focused to be much brighter from the vantage point of aircraft than people on the ground.

14. Impact on Birds and Other Wildlife

Persons who have raised this issue have provided many studies. Magnum Communications should offer the basis for his statement that bird kills do not occur.

There does appear to be credible information on the occurrence of bird kills. See all the materials submitted by Jim Lutes of the F&WS in Portage.

We have never stated that bird kills do not occur. Dick Rogers has referenced studies he’s familiar with pointing out that there are major differences in various estimates. He reminded everyone (and Jim Lutes concurred) that birds are also killed by buildings, water towers, and many other structures. Dave Lyshek has had to remind people time and again to keep in perspective that this proposed tower of

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 32

less than 500’ is in a very different category than those that have been referenced—some quintuple the height.

I have had two extensive and very productive one-on-one discussions with Jim Lutes. Jim asked me to check on a new alternative lighting system the FAA is studying. After that conversation I contacted the FAA and reported my findings back to Jim. Jim and I agreed to keep the lines of communication between us open and share new information as it is released by the FAA. Jim made several other points to me that I took note of (I used to work as a news reporter and hope that if questioned, Jim would confirm that my notes accurately reflect his comments): When you first made the comment about assisting Necedah Wildlife I called them to check up on you. I wasn’t surprised to see the nice letters that came in later as those positives are what I had been told . . . There is a need for communications towers-- reality of world we live in . . . I myself have gone on radio stations to educate about wildlife. Certainly positives in what media does for wildlife and media needs towers to broadcast . . . 25% of birds killed are by short towers like the one you are proposing because there are so many more short towers than tall ones . . . If built, would hate to see it built at say 350 feet instead of 489 feet if that would possibly lead to a second tower being needed in the future which is the last thing Wildlife wants to see from a migratory bird stand point. One tower without enough co-location space to prevent a second tower.

Edge Consulting completed FWS screening criteria and did not identify any concerns with respect to endangered species or habitat. The WDNR concurred with these findings. The WDNR also provided the FWS tower siting guidelines for our reference. This identified a normal zone of nocturnal bird migration between the heights of 656’ to 2460’. Since our initial application we reduced our tower height from 500’ to even further below this height region to 489’. Additional concessions and design features that meet the FWS site criteria include: a small tower footprint, eliminating building lighting, accommodating co-locations, and placing money in escrow for tower removal.

Edge Consulting also completed additional research to address bird mortality issues with respect to this specific site location. The Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative has a list of official, approved, and nominated “Important Bird Areas” – IBAs. This is a voluntary program that aims to “identify and protect sites that are most important to birds at any stage in their life cycle… These sites are considered to be exceptionally significant for bird conservation…”. The WDNR also publishes a regional map which represents Counties where known migratory bird concentration sites have been noted. Although the wild life areas in Rutland undoubtedly host various birds as they move through the area they have NOT been

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 33

listed as an IBA or significant migratory bird concentration area nor are there any others in the area.

We are not denying that towers and many other structures can contribute to bird mortality. We do not doubt that there are notorious towers along migration pathways of heights well above our proposed tower that contribute to this concern. My experience has not led me to personally observe the physical evidence of mortality issues. However, I do not have experience dealing with much larger towers up to 2400’ placed along known migratory paths. Due to the continued focus on this perceived concern, I feel I must reiterate that we are not proposing such a tower at such great heights or one that is along a migratory pathway.

15. Minimum Coverage Required to Obtain FCC license

It has been stated that the charge of the FCC is to maximize the use of the spectrum. Does this requirement pass to Magnum Communications, meaning they must maximize the use of the spectrum? Or can the station go smaller and serve just the Stoughton area?

Also a tower consultant question.

The scope of this project is related to the re-location of a Class A FM station. Interpretation of the related siting window was originally evaluated and shown to be accurate by the Evans Report. At the request of the Town of Rutland the same map was expanded in scale to reveal a larger mapped area. During the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence that the window is indeed narrow in extent and therefore siting locations are limited. During the same meeting Chairman Beske pointed out that his research shows that a Class B station typically correlates to a taller tower than a Class A station. Furthermore, it was identified that operation of a tower directly in the City of Stoughton would be potentially viable for non-commercial operation which is inconsistent with this project. It is our belief that the culmination of these topics discussed above adequately addresses this question and specifically that a smaller station cannot be utilized.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 34

15. Ice Falling

Jessica Polakowski raised the issue of the how far away from the tower ice may fall, expressing concern that part of their property may be unsafe during the winter months due to the risk of ice falls. The base of the guy lines are within 20-30 feet of the Polakowski property line.

The Evans reports suggested that the County should require “ice breakers” and “preform clips” to prevent ice from sliding down the guy wires (page 10, point 4). Magnum should provide details on these items, including whether or not these would be visible.

Several Town residents reported that both sides of the Beltline in Madison had to be closed for 2- 3 hours on March 1, 2011, due to ice falling from the WMTV tower. That tower is 300 feet off the Beltline, but also it is taller than the proposed tower. This incident was reported on web site Channel3000.com as well as other local news websites plus the March 2, 2011 Wisconsin State Journal.

It was also pointed out that a tower (taller than the proposed) was removed from Elver Park in Madison at least partially due to falling ice concerns.

I have been told that the Army Corps of Engineers has done research into tower icing but I have not been able to locate the specific report dealing with distances from a structure within which ice can reasonably be expected to fall.

The stated distance of the base of the guy lines being within 20-30 feet from the Polakowski property line does not appear to be consistent with our previously submitted zoning drawings. Regardless, of this discrepancy the offset is even further than previously displayed. When the project was initiated a 500’ tower was considered. However the height was subsequently reduced to 489’. The height reduction shall also correlate to the shortening in the guy radius. Based on this change, the bottom of the guy line shall be approximately 92’ from the east (Polakowski) property line. The foundation for the guy lines shall be approximately 74’ from the same property line. An updated set of zoning drawings have been prepared which identifies these offsets.

Concerns with falling ice have been raised. A falling ice event occurring on 3/1/2011 related to the WMTV beltline tower deserves clarification. The WMTV Tower is 1300’ tall. Review of aerial photography indicates that the tower is 350’+/- from beltline right-of-way. The opposite side of the belt line appears to be 590’+/-. This tower is more than 2.5 times as tall as our proposed height and is offset from its property line by approximately 27% of its height. On the other hand we are proposing a tower significantly shorter in height, with a setback to the nearest property line of approximately 74% of its overall height. Our actual tower

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 35

would be 364’+/- to the nearest property line which actually rivals that of the WMTV tower which is significantly taller. This topic was discussed during the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting. An inquiry and quick calculation was made by Chairman Beske regarding the offset to the opposite side of the beltline. Chairman Beske surmised that this distance was around 50% of the tower height and commented that a 50% tower height for falling ice concerns may be a reasonable distance. As indicated above, we surpass this distance.

The tower shall adhere to the recommendations outlined in the Evans Report on Page 10, item 4. The preforms and ice breakers/ice clips are attached at the guy end points and are not considered a significant visible concern. A typical detail and photographs follow:

Ice clips Preforms

16. Stoughton Letters?

Helen Johnson has stated via email that the letters written in 2004 by Stoughton officials are still relevant.

----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Johnson To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 7:18 PM Subject: WBKY Radio

Dear Town of Rutland and Dane County Planning and Board members,

As you know, there were a couple of dozen letters sent to the FCC by Stoughton officials and community leaders in support of WBKY's city of license being moved to Stoughton.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 36

It is my understanding that some are suggesting that because those letters were written in 2004 that they no longer apply. To the contrary, what should be taken from those 2004 dates is that there has been strong support for many years.

I also want to chime in with Stoughton Fire Chief Marty Lamers' statement that this is not just about Stoughton, but the whole area including Oregon, Brooklyn and beyond.

To the people of Rutland, I understand not wanting a tower. At the same time, if every town had said "no" then the current radio stations you listen to or television stations you watch wouldn't be there for you either. I ask you to allow this tower to be built for the greater good of the area just as other towns have for other stations for the greater good of the area including Rutland. The fact is, towers and other infrastructure are a necessary part of these important technologies that have become so important in our modern lives.

I regret that my current health is not permitting me to attend both the town and county zoning meetings to reiterate the strong support of many for the WBKY move. The WBKY radio move, and yes the tower itself due to the potential public safety improvements it could provide now and in the future, make this a significant opportunity for our area for many generations to come.

Sincerely,

Helen Johnson Former Mayor of Stoughton

We are pleased to have garnered the support of numerous Stoughton Officials plus Oregon Police Chief, Doug Pettit. We appreciate the follow up correspondence from Helen Johnson and believe this substantiates the current relevance of their support. Furthermore, I think it is worthy to reflect upon her plea to allow this tower to be built for the greater good of the area just as other towns have for other stations for the greater good of the area including Rutland. This particular statement reminded me of a particular section in the Town of Rutland Comprehensive Plan. Looking out for the greater good of the area is an opportunity to overcome two community weaknesses which are specifically identified in the Town of Rutland Comprehensive plan (inserted below).

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 37

17. Why was the tower decision made but not the studio location decision.

Dave Magnum indicated the tower is much harder to site than the studio, and, without the tower, the studio is not needed.

We consider this topic as adequately addressed and do not believe it directly relates to the Town of Rutland tower ordinance.

18. Jobs

Dave Magnum indicated that the radio station’s market would need to be built up before jobs could be created.

We consider this topic as adequately addressed and do not believe it directly relates to the Town of Rutland tower ordinance.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 38

19. Utilities

Dave Magnum mentioned that a shorter tower, as a result of using more power, would require that three phase power would need to be brought in. The taller tower, as a result of using less power, would be powered by the currently available one phase power (meaning available at the Town roads in the area; power would still have to extended to the actual tower site).

As stated in the text of the comments Dave Lyshek made to Dane County, the nearest Three Phase power is 2 ½ miles away from the proposed site. I spoke further with Steve Schuett of Alliant Energy. He said if Three Phase power would be required all related power poles would probably need to each be raised by five feet and that two wires would need to be added. In addition, there would need to be up to four additional cross arms. Plus, anchoring would have to be added on angles. That un-necessary waste would occur up front. Then, there would be un- necessary power consumption waste on an on-going basis coupled with a loss of significant co-location space which as stated in the ordinances is crucial to the goal of reducing the number of towers. Like the engineers Dave Lyshek referenced in his statement at the Dane County meeting, Steve Schuett believes the answer to avoiding all of this un-necessary waste is clear.

20. Tower Failure due to Guy Wire Failure

An incident cited in South Milwaukee was caused by sabotage (someone cutting the guy wires).

The Army Corps of Engineers has a report on the Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab website describing towers that have collapsed due to ice or ice and wind loading. See: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/conferencepapers/Mulherin_Atmos_Icing.pdf

The proposed tower shall be designed and manufactured in accordance with State Code and EIA/TIA standards. These standards require consideration of ice and wind loading. In accordance with recommendations in the Evans Report, guy anchors and the base of the tower shall be cordoned off with chain-link fencing as security measures.

21. Siting issue

Siting by frequency is controlled by FCC, but actual tower siting is an issue left to local control.

The scope of this project is related to the re-location of a Class A FM station. During the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence that the siting window is indeed narrow in extent and therefore there were limited siting locations. Related to meeting specific local tower siting

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 39

requirements we respect the Town of Rutland’s jurisdiction. As appropriate we have sited a tower that meets the Town of Rutland ordinance.

21. What assumptions went into tower siting?

This should be answered in the form of a letter to ZLR, from Magnum Communications or its agent, copying the Town, so the Town and ZLR can be aware of this answer.

Before Dave Lyshek of Edge Consulting and I started the application process we first purchased a disc from Town Clerk Dawn George containing the Rutland ordinances so as to make sure we closely adhered to them. Our expectation was approval of this tower site due to our commitment to perform thorough, competent and respectful work. We entered the application process feeling strongly about several factors: 1. We chose and were able to make arrangements to obtain a site far off of the nearest road (Old Stage) next to an operating gravel pit in the corner or a field with trees on two sides. 2. All adjacent property owners were willing to discuss selling us land--one approached us unsolicited. 3. The process had been very open and transparent. My station van which is a moving billboard had traversed the territory on several occasions. 4. Chairman Beske drove out to the proposed site and over the trunk of a car went through the process and anticipated time-lines. Our understanding was that the key to approval would in large part be based on the findings of Dane County's Consulting Engineer, Evans & Associates. When the Evan's report came back confirming that we had indeed done thorough and competent work we felt that we would soon have the approvals necessary to begin construction.

One addition question was asked at the end of the 3/23 meeting. This question was raised at the earlier public hearing but I neglected to include it on the list.

The question was whether the move of the station from Portage to Stoughton area was initially suggested by the FCC and then pursued by Magnum Communications, or whether the move was something that Magmnum Communications requested of the FCC.

As of 3/23/11, this is still open.

This question was answered the first time many years ago. If you review the letters written by Stoughton officials to the FCC dating back to August of 2004 you will see many references to the fact that Magnum Communications filed an application proposing to change the WBKY city of license from Portage to Stoughton.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 40

Page 3, paragraph 4, of the Evans Report refers to the process of reassignment and re-location of WBKY to Stoughton, Wisconsin in Dane County.

At the 2/17/11 Rutland meeting there was discussion about the roles of the Federal, State and Local governments in this application process--what my contingency plan was if the proposed tower could not be built--whether I'd keep the station in Portage etc. I explained that I had been required to sign a document with the FCC stating that if the FCC did go through the process of changing the city of license from Portage to Stoughton (change the FCC Table of Allotments) that I would follow through and build it.

In my follow-up letter to the Rutland residents who had attended the 2/17/11 Rutland meeting I elaborated further about how a broadcast engineer had discovered the small window allowing WBKY to be licensed to Stoughton and how adjacent radio frequencies must be protected.

Then at the end of the 3/23/11 Rutland meeting I was pressed yet again on this question. Since this question is now on the written question list it seems I have no choice but to get far more personal than I would like: My late wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996. A year later it spread to her bones. In the Spring of 2002 it penetrated her brain. It was then that we made the decision to put all of our stations up for sale. While trivial compared to her health, this was a very difficult decision for us because we had started the company together from scratch in 1991.

When our stations were put up for sale, brokers and potential suitors began examining our stations to see if any of the stations could be altered or moved. It was because of this scrutiny that an engineer discovered that enough changes to other facilities had been made to create a very small window for WBKY to be re- licensed to Stoughton. We signed documents to sell most of the stations including WBKY shortly before she died in December of 2002. If my wife hadn’t had terminal cancer we wouldn’t have put the stations up for sale and this small window would not have been searched for and probably never discovered. Needless to say, if I had my wish, Lynn would still be here and I’d have never learned of this discovery.

Ultimately, FCC ownership rule changes prevented me from transferring the stations to the company that had filed to buy them. After a period of time I decided to file for the move of WBKY from Portage to Stoughton.

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 41

If this tower is approved, my staff and I, as we do at our other tower locations, would work to cultivate a good working relationship with our neighbors. Each neighbor would be provided an Incident Response Plan with several contact names and numbers. We would work to create a dialogue so as to quickly respond in the event of questions or concerns. There can be no dispute that I’ve proven to be a hands-on operator. I’m not shy about giving out my home phone number—I provided it in the letter I mailed to Rutland residents.

I am confident that if approved, this tower, like the others I operate, will within a short period of time, no longer be regarded the issue that it has been through this process.

Please confirm that all questions have been answered to your satisfaction or if you require further clarification. We request that you give us this answer no later than 4/14/11. This would give us time to respond prior to the scheduled 4/19/11 Rutland meeting.

Respectfully, Dave

WBKY APPLICATION – RESPONSE TO RUTLAND QUESTIONS 42

Engineering Statement Prepared for Dane County Re: Proposed WBKY Tower Site #2157 Township of Rutland

Application for CUP

January 25, 2011

Prepared by:

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 216 Green Bay Rd., Suite 205, Thiensville, WI 53092 Phone (262) 242-6000 Fax (262) 242-6045 www.evansassoc.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND______3 II. ABSTRACT______3 III. SITE ANALYSIS ______4 #1 Validation of RF Information ______4 #2 RF Considerations ______5 #3 Alternative Ways of Addressing a Particular Service Area Void ______5 #4 Conformance to Industry Standards ______6 #5 Proposed Height Verification______6 #6 Response to Nearby Residents’ Questions ______7 #7 Validation of Adequate Support Structure ______8 #8 Alternative Sites ______8 #9 Co-location Capabilities ______9 #10 Propagation Analysis ______9 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS______9

Figure 1 – Site Location Area ______11

Figure 2 – Propagation Map Using Proposed Facilities ______12

Figure 3 - Propagation Map at 315’ ______13

Figure 4 - Propagation Map at 400’ ______14

Figure 5 – Vertical Elevation Drawing ______15

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 2 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Engineering Statement Prepared for Dane County Re: Proposed WBKY Tower Site #2157 3768 Old Stage Road Township of Rutland

I. BACKGROUND

This engineering report has been prepared by Ralph E. Evans, of Evans Associates Communications Consultants in Thiensville, Wisconsin, regarding a proposed 488-foot guyed lattice antenna structure and equipment shelter to be located in the Township of Rutland in Dane County, Wisconsin. The tower will be located on property owned by Stoughton Farms, Incorporated on a 15.5 acre parcel of land in the southeast corner of the property. The tower will be adjacent to a gravel pit, tucked into a grove of trees nearly equidistant from Old Stage road, North Union Road, Union-Dane Road, and Shady Willow Road. It is approximately 1800’ from the nearest side road, a private drive servicing the gravel pit.

Evans Associates has been retained to evaluate the tower proposal from the standpoint of radio engineering and coverage necessity. Pursuant to our employment, this statement has been prepared.

The siting information utilized in the instant analysis has been provided to Evans Associates by Magnum Communications and the Dane County Division of Zoning. This information has been checked and updated using Evans’ databases and software programs. The combined information has been used in evaluating the structure at this proposed location with respect to Dane County’s Zoning Ordinance.

Magnum Communications is the licensee of Class A FM station WBKY, previously assigned to Portage, Wisconsin, but which is currently in the process of reassignment and relocation to Stoughton, Wisconsin in Dane County. Dane County’s Tower Ordinance entitled PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS has provided the template for the engineering evaluation. The analysis and the conclusions contained herein have been prepared by or under the direction of Ralph Evans, of Evans Associates. Information provided to Evans Associates by other parties is believed to be correct, and has been verified where feasible.

II. ABSTRACT

Obtaining local approval to construct the tower site is the final step in WBKY’s quest to move and improve its underutilized facility (according to the applicant, the 60 db service contour population would increase from 62,943 persons to 233,071 persons1, and Stoughton would obtain its first FM

1 Evans’ analysis shows similar, but not exactly the same populations of 48,512 and 213,585 persons respectively.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 3 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

transmission service). This is a substantial facility improvement, and it is consistent with the FCC’s mandate that licensees maximize their facilities to the greatest extent possible to serve underrepresented communities. However, the final construction application is a matter for local zoning and planning authorities to consider. According to the code, the applicant must address a public interest evaluation showing the balance between the environmental and visual impact of the tower compared to other positive and mitigating factors. As the below discussion affirms, Evans Associates is of the opinion that a grant of the Magnum application is in the public interest, and is respectful of environmental impact factors consistent with other installations of this type.

Broadcast radio facilities are mandated by the FCC to serve their cities of license. Depending upon the programming format used on the station, such service usually takes the form of entertainment, news and local public safety information delivered to the licensed community and the surrounding area. Weather information and school closings are examples of typical public safety broadcasts. Other aural services assigned to Madison or other communities would not usually exhibit a local Stoughton focus. The proposed construction of the broadcast facility appears to have met the public interest requirements of the FCC, the FAA, the Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics, and the Environmental Protection Agency2.

Accordingly, this document provides information that may be used to weigh land use and other environmental considerations, including the visual impact of a 488’ tower. The proposed site has been analyzed carefully from the standpoints of regulatory history, service necessity and availability of alternative sites. The conclusions reached herein represent the most complete engineering evaluation Evans is able to perform. This document and the attached exhibits are true and accurate to the best knowledge and belief of Evans Associates.

III. SITE ANALYSIS

The following paragraphs represent our analysis of Magnum’s application for a guyed antenna supporting structure in the Township of Rutland near Brooklyn, Wisconsin.

#1 Validation of RF Information

The proposed site utilizes an FM antenna that will be mounted near the top of the tower, representing full omnidirectional coverage. The antenna height proposed has been requested by Magnum in order to “fill in” behind hills and avoid multipath distortion, which, in this engineer’s experience, is a challenge for “high definition” (IBOC) digital FM radio channels3. The Longley-Rice study of Figure 2 shows the area (red) that would receive broadcast-quality digital radio within the “Grade A” (city grade) contour. Even at the proposed height of 488’, some degradation of signal is shown at the edges of the city grade contour by the yellow areas at the periphery.

2 Administered by the FCC with regard to environmental impact and radio intensity levels. 3 Magnum may not initially utilize IBOC technology, but competitive pressure will mandate its use in two or three years.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 4 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

According to the applicant, the tower will be built with sufficient strength to ensure suitability for additional co-locators. It should be noted that the County’s ordinance requires four additional co- locators, a figure that is not specifically mentioned by Magnum with reference to particular antenna weight and wind loading. This observation is further discussed in the “Recommendations” section of this document. Because of the topology of the area, the proposed tower would provide a unique opportunity for other wireless networks to supply high-reliability services, such as land mobile radio and broadband Internet. Relatively taller structures are required to serve areas behind hills, in buildings and through dense trees.

To evaluate the effect of shorter towers than that proposed, Evans ran propagation analyses at 315’ and 400’ in addition to the proposed height of 488 feet. In Magnum’s opinion, the maximum height represents the minimum that will achieve the required technical objectives. The attached propagation maps show the effect of decreasing tower height, and paragraph III-5 shows the relative population associated with each. While the 315’4, 400’ and 488’ maps show definite differences in coverage, it certainly may be argued that the difference in performance between a tower of an intermediate height, say 450’, would be minor compared to that at 488’. However, the differential visual impact would be minor as well, thereby achieving a dubious benefit.

Figure 1, attached, shows the area within which the tower may be located according to the FCC’s allocation and city coverage rules. There are no known FCC registered towers within this area, the closest being only 200’ high and outside of the siting window. It should be noted that cell towers under 200 feet do not require FCC registration.

#2 RF Considerations

The proposed site will meet FCC RF exposure requirements with respect to the general population, and will not interfere with public safety radio networks as long as industry-standard equipment is used and good engineering practices are followed during construction. FCC rules require that a tower climbing power-down procedure be put in place during antenna maintenance. It is suggested that the applicant’s OET 65 (RF exposure) procedure be supplied for the record.

Accordingly, with the RF energy standards utilized in the evaluations by this consultant, and as per previous concurring opinions from the Medical College of Wisconsin, it is concluded that there is no credible concern related to RF health risks with respect to the described site as long as the industry standard construction practices are followed.

#3 Alternative Ways of Addressing a Particular Service Area Void

In the search area defined by Magnum, there appears to be no clearly superior alternative location for this tower. Moving the site south would be disadvantageous because it would reduce the population served. Moving northeast may be problematical because of increased residential density.

4 Lower towers than 315’ would reduce the coverage of the station below the FCC’s full Class A designation.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 5 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Evans has rechecked the Magnum search area map, and the result is shown in Figure 1. The proposed site is located at the northwestern boundary of the area (see Section #9 of this report). It is the intent of the County’s Ordinance to populate the county with the minimum number of structures by requiring co-location. Since there are several Internet, cell and PCS providers in the Dane County area, additional providers could be expected to co-locate at this proposed site, especially as wireless Internet services become more prevalent. The tower will be placed near a gravel pit, and partially shielded by trees. In this engineer’s opinion, it probably would be difficult to replicate this confluence of factors within the remainder of the siting area.

It should also be noted that this location could be an excellent site for other public safety and Internet initiatives known to be proceeding in Dane County. While such use cannot be guaranteed, it is suggested that the Sheriff’s Communications Committee and the State Patrol be made aware of the existence of the tower if it is constructed.

#4 Conformance to Industry Standards

The proposed site has received clearance from the FAA and from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aeronautics.

Assuming no serious malfunction of either transmitters or land mobile radio receivers, interference to public safety or other RF services is not expected. In any case, all transmitters and receivers located at common sites should observe good engineering practice with respect to tower bonding and grounding.

#5 Proposed Height Verification

As per the above discussion, the tower height is dictated by the antenna height necessary for reliable coverage, which is influenced by topography and “look angle.” This proposal appears to be reasonable at 488 feet above ground level, considering that Magnum intends to accommodate additional carriers, and desires to service the maximum possible number of listeners. The affectivity of the tower height can be seen in the following population table vs. tower height:

Facility Contour Population Housing Units WBKY Existing 60 db 48,512 22,956 WBKY Proposed 489’ 60 db 213,585 86,517 WBKY 400’ Tower 60 db 202,303 81,739 WBKY 315’ Tower 60 db 195,731 79,575

These figures were determined by Evans Associates. The 60 db service contour represents the minimum signal that will yield good stereo audio and relatively artifact-free digital signals.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 6 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

#6 Response to Nearby Residents’ Questions

An objection to the new tower has been received from adjacent landowner Jessica Hutson Polakowski. Ms. Polakowski states that she learned of the proposed tower after closing on their land on September 7, 20105. Several alleged deficiencies are listed in the written objection, as follows:

1. Insufficient “fall down” radius.

Evans is a radio frequency engineer, not a tower engineer, although we can offer our opinion concerning structural integrity based upon 45 years of designing tower-based facilities. Edge Consulting Engineers and the tower manufacturer (Electronic Research Inc.) are tasked to design the tower to service its desired application. In Evans’ experience, properly installed towers almost never fail absent a preventable outside influence, because they are designed to very high Electronic Industry Association standards that specify up to 90 mile per hour winds with 1 inch of radial ice6 (Hurricane force and thousands of pounds of ice load). In addition to the EIA standards, towers may be designed to respect any fall-down radius, including a 200% safety factor or higher. Of course, the towers must be properly manufactured, installed and maintained. Generally, in the rare event they may fail, perhaps due to improper installation or maintenance, they hardly ever fall down “flat”. Rather, they usually fold up upon themselves inside the outer guy radius. The primary exception to this is the case of sabotage when the guy wires are cut7. This is less likely to occur with the subject tower because there are six anchor points, each holding three or four guy wires.

Nevertheless, it is possible, although unlikely, that a properly designed and installed tower would “lay down flat” if all seven guy wires at two anchor points were cut simultaneously. To avoid this possibility, the applicant may wish to consider installing fencing and razor wire at the tower base and all six-guy points. For extra security, a solid-rod tower could be specified that would resist the shear forces introduced by the loss of one or more guy wires. This would have the additional advantage of increasing tower strength for additional co-locators. In addition, it is suggested that a professional engineer inspect the finished tower for manufacturer or installed defects.

It is possible that ice falling from the tower could pose a hazard in certain cases. This ice will usually fall within the outer guy radius, except in cases where it can “ride” down the guy wires. To address this issue, “ice breakers” should be installed on the guy wires.

5 The FCC application for modification of construction permit was filed with the FCC in August 2010. The existence of the WBKY proposal should have been discoverable through due dilligence. 6 These two conditionsalmost never occur together. 7 This mode of failure has also occurred if insufficient concrete is used at anchors.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 7 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

2. Visibility from Lands owned by the DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (et. al.)

Evans’ opinion as an expert concerning matters of visual impact is little better than anyone else’s opinion. However, the Town and/or the County are only required to “consider” the visual impact of the tower in its deliberations. In this case, reasonable people may differ.

It may be proper to ask the applicant to provide photo simulations of the tower taken at the sites mentioned in the objection.

It should be noted that the statements made in the objection concerning the tower lighting are incorrect. According to Evans’ information, the tower will be painted international orange and white, and red lights (incandescent or LED) will be used during the night.

The photo simulations indicate that surrounding mature trees will partially obscure the view of the tower from close-in vantage points.

3. Information provided to Evans Associates

Evans Associates has received all information necessary to support the instant analysis. The five questions submitted to the applicant have been satisfactorily addressed.

Evans concurs that there is no other known structure within the siting area that could reasonably be extended to the required height.

#7 Validation of Adequate Support Structure

Magnum has provided a conceptual drawing of the proposed tower (see Figure 5). A set of detailed design drawings has been reviewed and stamped by a structural engineer licensed by the State of Wisconsin to verify that the latest EIA/TIA standards are being observed. A specific statement concerning the extent of possible co-location should be provided (see “Recommendations”).

#8 Alternative Sites

According to the applicant, there are no existing structures that would supply essentially the same functionality as the proposed tower off of old Stage Road. Indeed, this engineer found no record of any existing or planned communications towers within 4.7 kilometers of the proposed search area in the FCC or FAA databases, other than Magnum’s own applications for the Brooklyn site (#1263803), and a previous abandoned application for a location in Oregon, Wisconsin (#1276118). Within the allocation siting area shown in Figure 1, there does not appear to be a clearly superior location offering the same or better tree screening and road setbacks.

The history of the search for a suitable solution to the broadcast coverage deficiency reveals few options for alternative sites. It is the opinion of Evans Associates that Magnum has done a thorough

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 8 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

job of searching for alternative sites, and, in our opinion, has met the pertinent requirements of the Dane County ordinance.

#9 Co-location Capabilities

According to Magnum, the proposed tower has been designed to accommodate additional future additional carriers. The Dane County standard is a total of five cellular carriers. Due to the unique facility being requested, it may be appropriate that additional collocation measures be requested. This is a good way of encouraging consolidation, thereby reducing tower proliferation.

#10 Propagation Analysis

The attached figures 2, 3 and 4 show the level of reception to be expected at 488, 315, and 400 feet above ground level. The color scheme used for the attached propagation maps is as follows:

Red – acceptable analog and digital coverage Orange – marginal digital coverage Yellow – Some digital artifacts present and some stereo noise in analog signal Green – The minimum reception level for most listeners using line-cord or mobile antennas

The best service among these three exhibits is rendered at 488 feet.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is this engineer’s opinion that Magnum has sufficiently demonstrated a need for building a tower at the proposed site, to be used by Class A broadcasting station WBKY. There are no alternative existing tower sites that can reasonably be determined as superior locations. Assuming that a qualified contractor does the installation, no undue impact is expected to public safety or convenience, as defined by the County’s tower ordinance. Once built, however, the tower should be configured to support as many co-locators as reasonably possible in order to prevent additional tower proliferation.

This consultant recommends the approval of the proposed construction at the requested height above ground of 488 feet, subject to the conditions tabulated below. Cutting the tower below the 488 level would seem to offer little or no commensurate visual impact benefit. With the adoption of the recommendations contained herein, it is the opinion of this consultant that the proposed tower will accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare, with respect to those items for which Evans Associates is expert.

Evans recommends that several additional exhibits be provided by Magnum, addressing the items mentioned in Section III of this document. These documents and certifications should be submitted to the County Zoning Committee, where they can be reviewed and approved when all items are properly addressed. These items therefore would be Conditions of Use, along with any other conditions the committee may recommend:

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 9 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

1. A copy of the FCC required radiation calculations should be provided according to Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 and its revisions.

2. A statement of compliance concerning the inspection of the erected tower by a registered professional tower engineer should be provided.

3. A statement from Magnum AND a professional tower engineer should be provided detailing the number and type of co-locaters that could be supported by the tower. The statement should also verify that the following minimum set of co-locators could be supported:

a. Four 4-bay 150 MHz. antennas centered at 400 feet with 7/8” transmission line.

b. Four Cellular/PCS antenna arrays (six antennas mounted on the tower without platforms) at 200 to 250 feet with six 7/8” transmission lines. If meeting this condition requires a tower with a greater visual impact, consideration should be given to mitigation measures such as using a solid rod tower for reduced face size.

c. An equipment shelter should be used that can be expanded to house the equipment for these antennas.

4. A statement should be provided that the proponent and the tower erector will be responsible to install “ice breakers” and “preform clips” on the guy wires for extra safety8.

5. 10’ fences with razor wire should be installed to secure the guy anchors and tower base.

6. All tower components, appurtenances and transmission lines should be securely bonded and grounded to prevent RF interference caused by stray signals.

Respectfully submitted,

Ralph E. Evans Evans Associates January 25, 2011

8 The reason for the preform clips is to keep the loops at the ends of the guy wires from “unraveling”, thereby weakening the attachment points.

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 10 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Figure 1 – Site Location Area

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 11 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Figure 2 – Propagation Map Using Proposed Facilities

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 12 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Figure 3 - Propagation Map at 315’

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 13 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Figure 4 - Propagation Map at 400’

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 14 Site Assessment Report Magnum Communications -Township of Rutland

Figure 5 – Vertical Elevation Drawing

Evans Associates Consulting Engineers 15 Site Assessment Report