~ ~ ~ <br />1 criteria in EC 9,5750, because there is no evidence in the record to support the refusal to allow <br />z ~ another variance request based u on a different site deli n such as an a ui ment shelter with ~ ~ . p g ~ q p <br />3 indoor equipment, a berm and landscaping around the site, or a design that does not include <br />• 4 underground ancillary facilities might not require an above ground air conditioning system far <br />• 5 equipment in the .vault}. In the alternative, AT&T request the Planning Commission to remand <br />6 the matter to the hearings officer with an order to allow AT&T to present any new noise study <br />• 7 andlor variance request. • <br />. 8 2. Appeal Fees, AT&T has paid concurrently with the #iling of this appeal the appeal <br />. 9 fees in an amount of $12,o4S.OS, which is equal to one-half of the original application fees for . <br />~0 the PUD and CUP permit applications, AT~T believes that the appeal fees are not in <br />11 compliance with applicable laws and requests the appeal fees be decreased. <br />12 . <br />13 Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ . <br />. <br />14 Dated: August 1 1, 2011 . <br />15 <br />• <br />1G <br />~7 Richard J, Busch, ~S o. 81180 ~ • <br />18 Busch Law Firm PLLC ~ . <br />i9 22525 SE 64`h Place, Suite 28S <br />20 Issaquah, VGA 98027 <br />z1 425-458-394 office <br />22 206-265-3821 Wireless <br />~3 rich.busch a~wirelesscounsel.com ~ . <br />Appeal Statement ofNew Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ~ 2 . File No. PDT 10-2 & CU l l-1 <br />• ~ PC Agenda -Page 16 <br />