Laserfiche WebLink
21. There are existing evergreen trees on the AppeilanYs property to the <br /> west which screen some of the antennas. (Exhibit C-1, Chapman <br /> testimony) The Appellant contended that the use of her trees is not <br /> sufficient to screen the antennas as submitted by the Applicant. (Poulin <br /> testimony, Crum6augh testimony) <br /> JurlsdlcHon: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional � <br /> authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth � <br /> in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above Findings of Facf, the Hearing Examiner ; <br /> enters the following Conclusions: <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. The Applicant requested approval of a Review Process II Special <br /> Property Use Permit for the installation of six panel antennas on the roof <br /> of an existing motei building at 1030 Broadway Avenue, Everett, <br /> Washington. Three antennas are located on the north end of the <br /> building and three on the south end of the building. In addition, the <br /> wireless communication facility has an electronic equipment structure <br /> located on the ground level nearthe existing motel o�ce. (finding 1J <br /> 2. Adequate notice has been given to all parties required to be given notice <br /> of the various processes of this application. (finding 4) The City'� re- <br /> issuance of the Permit corrected ali deficiencies, if any, caused by the ; <br /> original issuance. The Gity's re-issuance of the Permit allowed for a � <br /> reasonable review and appeal process. (�nding 6) <br /> 3. The appeal time limits within the City of Everett are set by Ordinance. <br /> The Ordinances cannot be expanded to accommodate the needs of the <br /> Appellant. The City processed the appeal in a proper manner. <br /> 4. The City used Review Process II for consideration of the antennas. <br /> While the Appellant contended that Review Process III should be used, <br /> the City's process was mandated by the Everett Municipal Code. <br /> (findings 16, 17& 18) <br /> 5. The City, by law, did not have to consider alternative sites for the facility. <br /> Because of the design of the facility, including the placement of the <br /> antennas on an existing structure, the Everett Municipal Code did not <br /> require the City or the Applicant to consider altemative sites. (findings <br /> 11-15) <br /> 10 <br />