Laserfiche WebLink
. • <br /> 6. The Appellant has failed to show any specific impacts of the presence of <br /> the roof mounted panel antennas. The Hearing Examiner has no <br /> jurisdictional authority to make any determinati� �� as to any property <br /> value impacts of such a design. <br /> 7. The consideration of potential health hazards resulting from the <br /> electromagnetic fields are outside the jurisdictional authority for review <br /> by the Hearing Examiner. (finding 10) <br /> 8. The ApplicanYs �esign that included the low profile mounting structure <br /> and the use of existing evergreen trees on the adjacent property <br /> adequately screen the antennas. While the Applicant has not planted <br /> any of the trees, they effectively block or reduce any visual impacts. <br /> (�ndings 19-21) <br /> 9. While the Applicant's rush to construct the project before the end of the <br /> appeal period is not laudable, it has no bearing on the final outcome of <br /> the appeal. The Applicant would have been acting as a more <br /> cooperative neighbor had it waited until the appeal period had run its <br /> course. However, the placement of the antennas on-site was legal, and <br /> the ApplicanYs actions are not ground for any reversal. <br /> DECISION <br /> Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, testimony and <br /> evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impres�ion of the <br /> Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the appeal of Beverly <br /> Crumbaugh is denied, and the City's issuance of the Special Property Use <br /> Permit #00-019 issued on October 31, 2000, remains as issued. <br /> L�one and dated this 8th day of March, 2001. <br /> .� �i. �,� <br /> , .,�, <br /> Jam . Driscoll <br /> Hearing Examiner <br /> 11 <br />