1030 BROADWAY VOICESTREAM ANTENNAS 2018-01-02 MF Import

Applicant; and, the mailing of the Notice of Decision to a local neighborhood chairman. (exhibit C-1) 5. In response to the issued Notice of Application (exhibit B-13J, the Appellant submitted written comments to the City and requested that she receive copies of all future notices and proceedings. The City was of the opinion that all mailings, including the Notice of Decision, were sent to the Appellant, but she contended othervvise. Because of the lack of notice, she contended, she failed to file an appeal of the Notice of Decision issued on August 15, 2000. (Crumbaugh testimony, Tyler testimony) 6. U�on determining that notice may not have been given to the Appellant, the City re-issued the Notice of�ecision on October 31, 2000. Subsequent to the re-issuance of the Notice of Decision, and within the appeal periods of the City of Everett, the Appellant filed an appeal of the October 31, 2000, Permit. She filed the appeal on November 13, 2000. ;exhibit C-1) 7. The Appellant contended that, even though she filed a timely appeal, the amount of time for filing after the re-issuance of the Permit was insu�cient to properly review the files and make a thoughtful and thorough appeal statement. (Poulin testimony, Crumbaugh testimony) 8. No construction of the wireless communication facility was undertaken immediately after the August 15, 2000, Permit issuance. However, on or about November 11, 2000, the Applicant constructed ihe antennas and electronic equipment facility. Construction was done consistent with the conditions of the original Permit. The constniction occuRed prior to the expiration of the appeal period for the re-issued Permit. The wireless communication faciliry on the motel is the finished project. (exhibit C-1, Tyler testimony) 9. After the App�icant constructed the antennas on or about November 11, 2000, the Appellant filed her appeal on November 13, 2000. (Tyler testimony) 10. The wireless communication facility is regulated by the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Sectian 704.a7(B)(iv) of the Act limits local jurisdictions (the Ciry of Everett)from regulating wireless communication facilities based on adverse health impacts resulting from e!ectromagnetic fields. The City's jurisdiction over these facilities is limited to review of the siting standards, zoning standards, and planning 7