My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 3691
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 3691
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2017 10:52:43 AM
Creation date
4/20/2017 10:52:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
3691
Date
11/18/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. <br /> SPU 17-91 and Variance 3-92 <br /> Page -7- <br /> 30. The Applicant submitted that utility poles typically rise above normal <br /> heights of structures. Because of the height that is required for such <br /> poles, variances are required from the City height standards. <br /> 31. Testimony was received from residents of the City of Everett. A summary <br /> of the testimony is as follows: <br /> A. Gail Chism - The witness submitted to be a member of the Lowell <br /> Civic Association and its Tower Committee. She submitted that the <br /> ethics of degrading the cemetery, which is sanctified ground, must <br /> be considered. She contended that there are no significant <br /> safeguards from the EMF's, and there is a potential for <br /> environmental damage resulting therefrom. She contended that the <br /> area will be "bombarded with invisible threats". She also <br /> contended that it is time to explore and research the microwave <br /> industry. <br /> The witness further contended that the cemetery is a historic area <br /> that should be preserved. The witness stated that the pole may <br /> need a flashing light, and this could be disruptive to members of <br /> the community. The witness recommended denial of the Special <br /> Property Use Permit and variance. <br /> In response to Ms. Chism's contentions regarding aviation lights, <br /> the Applicant stated that the FAA had determined that no light is <br /> needed. <br /> B. Maxine Weatherton - The witness submitted that the proposed <br /> location is a poor choice for the placement of the tower. She <br /> stated that many other places are available in Everett. However, <br /> the chosen location is aesthetically displeasing to the <br /> neighborhood. She contended that the pole may be the beginning of <br /> other towers being placed in the cemetery. <br /> C. Mark Garcia - The witness submitted a slide of the Rucker Tomb. <br /> He submitted that the cemetery is a serene place and the placement <br /> of the tower will be "the beginning of the end". <br /> D. Denise Collette - The witness submitted that she is new to the <br /> community but wants to raise her family in the area. She <br /> contended that the cemetery is an original pioneer burial ground. <br /> She contended that EMF's may exist from the proposed site. <br /> 32. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Everett the <br /> criteria of EMC 41.130.0 must be satisfied. Those criteria include: <br /> A. That the variance is necessary because of exceptional or <br /> extraordinary circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, <br /> or location of the subject property; or the location of a <br /> pre-existing improvement on the subject property that conformed to <br /> the zoning code in effect when the improvement was constructed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.