My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992/07/08 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1992/07/08 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 12:51:20 PM
Creation date
9/29/2020 10:15:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
7/8/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
254 <br /> July 8,1992 <br /> C. There was <br /> e discrepancy in the testimony regarding <br /> the distancefrom the proposed tower to the nearest <br /> residence. Burlington Northern must provide additional <br /> information to insure accuracy of the distance from the <br /> base of the tower to the nearest residence. <br /> Mark Stowe, attorney representing the Lowell Civic Association, <br /> ended that in Item 1, (A) View Impact and Aesthetics, <br /> that ma scale of distance, topographical map or some <br /> other <br /> dimensional method to show the impact the individual <br /> properties. He also asked that an accurate accounting of the <br /> number of homes be verified. <br /> Mr. Stowe also recommended that two additional items be <br /> addressed under item 1,(8) as follows: <br /> 5. prohibition of any further additions to the <br /> antenna/dishes. <br /> 6. no tower at all. <br /> Mr. Stowe offered photographs for review showing the impacts to <br /> the individual homes end the neighborhood. Robert Welkley, <br /> attorney.representing Burlington Northern, objected to further <br /> exhibits being presented as the public portion of the hearing <br /> Chad been closed. <br /> Vice President Anderson ruled that the photographs could not be <br /> submitted asexhibit as the appropriate portion of the <br /> hearing.for thea presentation of exhibits had closed, <br /> Mr. Stowe also requested that the health impacts be more <br /> closely wed; in specific, standards other than ANSI <br /> those,"recognized by the FCC to m impacts, be evaluated. <br /> HC also asked that Carroll Cobbs( Information presented as <br /> Exhibit 4 be thoroughlyreviewed and considered. - <br /> Robert Welkley, attorney representing Burlington Northern, <br /> stated that it was the purpose of this hearing to determine if <br /> the Determination of Non-Significance was proper or not and <br /> Whether the Responsible Official acted within the law. He said <br /> that Burlington Northern still offers objections to the <br /> timeliness of this appeal and they reserve their right to <br /> appeal. <br /> Mr. Welkley said they are willing to work withstaff to provide <br /> the additional information and asked if a video would be <br /> appropriate. <br /> C <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.