My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 5-15-15 to 5-25-15
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments 5-15-15 to 5-25-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2015 10:42:54 AM
Creation date
5/27/2015 9:50:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
5/27/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Additionally, there is a 75-foot radius around the tower which is the require <br />setback distance from the property lines and serving as a fall-zone for the tower. <br />All of these structures, parking, access areas, and the required setback area <br />should be treated as taxable and non-exempt property. This legally-required <br />change in tax status should be described and defined as a condition in the CUP <br />decision. <br />Taking <br /> <br />Measure 47, issued by the State Legislature and approved by voters assures that <br />property values losses resulting from new government regulations must be <br />compensated. DLCD maintains that Measure 49 claims are only valid for <br />enactment of land use regulations that restrict use of a property. However, <br />approval of this application could meet this criteria in the context of its impact on <br />neighboring properties. Therefore, the argument is presented here in order to <br />preserve the right to future litigation of the matter. <br /> <br />When people decide where to live and invest in their homestead in an entirely <br />residentially-zoned neighborhood, they have a reasonable right to expect that <br />only residential uses will occur around them. The city has already made an <br />exception to this by allowing a church to be built on the site under consideration. <br />No neighbors objected to this. Now the city is considering allowing a cell phone <br />tower to be built on the church site right in the middle of an exclusively <br />residential neighborhood on a site surrounded by homes. This sort of action by <br />the city could not be too much further from the reasonable and orderly process <br />of land development and land use that zoning and the entire panoply of land use <br />regulations are intended to ensure. <br /> <br />If this cell tower is approved by the city, it will constitute a regulatory taking of <br />property values for all nearby property owner. Negative property value impacts <br />resulting from cell towers is intuitively obvious to any rational and informed <br />individual, however it is also established elsewhere in this testimony using factual <br />and objective data combined with the best available scientific research. Each <br />nearby resident will be eligNew Measure 49 Claim <br />their lost property values. <br /> <br /> <br />Eben Fodor is a professional planner and the Principal of Fodor & Associates LLC, <br /> <br />Fodor & Associates - Page 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.