2520 MADISON ST VERIZON ANTENNA 2018-01-01 MF Import

28. The nature of callufar activity necessitates that height be achieved in order to provide the intended service. The subject property was selected in order to make the maximum use of the existing dense buffer oi evergreen trees in the area, white being a location thai �vould be an effective area for a cellular cell for the transmission of sipnals. (Exhibit 1, Hunt testimonyj 29. The requested variance will not be detrimental to the properties in the area or to the Ciiy as a whole. It will be compatible with other uses and will rci significantly impact any of ihe adjoining properties. (Exhibit 1, Siddiq testimony) 30. Because of the location of the mature trees, the location of Interstate 5 and the need for the cellular colls, the variance is necessary. (Exhibit 1, Siddiq tesfimony) 31. In addition to a height variance, the Applicant must also secure a varianc : from the mi�imum setbacks. The sar,^,e variance criteria as set forth in finding 27 apply. 32. A City sanitary sewer easement is immediately west of the site, and the proposed facility is proj�^cted to be sandwiched between Int�rstate 5 and the easement. As a rer ult, a reduction of the seibacks is necessitated. The setback of six feet S'rom the east property line and 16 feet from the closest residential struciure allow the development to occur. The circumstances of limited space, as well as the topogr3phy cf the site and the location of the freeway, necessitate the variance. (5iddiq testimony) 33. The variance is needed in order for the site to be developed in a manner that will provide ihe proposed service. (Hunt testimony) 3A. An adjoining property owner submilted testimony in opposition tp the proposal. The witness te�Csfied that he was concerned about the microwave fields from the facility and that it was not an attractive development. He submitted that he was uncomfortable with the proposed development. he wa� ais� concerned about any extensive screening and what it may do to limit his view. (Urdahl testimony) Juris�iction: The Nearing Examiner of fhe Cify ot Everett has jurisdicliona! authority to hola a hearing and to iss��e ihe decision. That authurity is set forth in EMC 2.23.9�0. Based on the above findings, the Hearing E.xaminerenters the following conclusions: