Public Hearings
Catholic Radio Network
Presentation by Baseline (Cory Miller) SU-16-0036 – 2 antenna structures to be placed on a 2.5 acre site north of 86, 17 miles east of Kiowa.
Tim Craft showed up at 7:17pm for those following his attendance.
Another Planning Commissioner showed up at 7:22pm.
CJ Kirst representing applicant.
Commissioners Questions:
Public Comment:
Richard Tunney: Want to register opposition to the application. He has issue with the location, and inconsistencies with the master plan. Rural beauty will be sacrificed. Precedent of this tower will allow other towers. Calls out regulations regarding locations of towers like this and this is zoned agricultural. Believes it will negatively impact his property values.
Kim Burgess: Wanted to point out errors in map in presentation. Has parcel directly to the west and has received a permit to build a home within 1500 feet of the tower location. Property value is questionable since no documentation has been put forth, however it should be something to anticipate the impact to the citizens. General compliance with master plan is not significant impact, but not showing any significant addition to the master plan. This does not add value and should not be approved. Other towers should be considered for emergency services.
Lance Wheeler: Property value and health impacts. At Community meeting CJ Kirst said this is designed to benefit the community. What sort of power will be used? There are studies that show that high frequency radio waves do have health impacts. And he lives approximately 1000 feet and has cattle that he’s worried about as well.
Beth Shelley: As a resident, this came up before in another area, and it hasn’t been on the radar for awhile. Neighbors in her area are not aware of it. Other neighbors would have concern, and there’s another tower to the north of her neighborhood and it’s been an issue. This tower is flashing light between 2-5am and affects property values. There would have been more response if there was better notification.
Applicant Response:
CJ Kirst: The tower to the north had different height regulations that this tower doesn’t have. We adhere to the radius that we’re supposed to notify residents. There’s towers that are near here that are in ag areas. And this is no different than any others approved on the 86 corridor. This property was purchased with the intention of these towers. They don’t want to build any more than this.
Jim O’Laughlin: Electric power is RF power. Fenced in area of 20 feet is the area where health issues could occur, so that’s taken care of. Cell towers don’t have to go through regulation like this. This tower is smaller than most towers. AM radios are preferred to be in a low spot. Letting the county add emergency services saves the county lots of money from having to build their own. These towers to broadcast EAS.
Commissioner questions round 2:
Kyle discusses the history of these towns. Since they aren’t incorporated they are governed by Elbert County regulations which aren’t designed for towns. They are zoned R-2, which is a catch all zoning. This would make developable parcels. Kyle offers to read the regulation, but says they are in the commissioner packets. They aren’t. Then she chides the commission because she said she personally mailed them all at the post office. She will read it out loud. Zone consolidation can only be added up to under then next larger size. That would be a rezone. Kyle is asking for new language in summarizing section F because she admits to not doing a good job with the description.
Is a survey required in this process? No changes are being made like that. At permit time, site plan must be submitted, which will show perimeters. Definition of “lot” is brought up where a lot has buildings, and Kyle thought it was for either empty or occupied lots. “A parcel and a lot should be synonymous.” she claims. Another definition calls a “parcel” a plot of land. So, Kyle would like to change wording to “lot and/or parcel”. Long discussion over language in several parts of the document.
Movement to accept, seconded. No public comment has been allowed.
Walked through the entire policy making sure all corrections are addressed.
The audience is upset that portions of the hearing have been skipped. Motion removed.
Public Comment:
Shelley Rodie: “Designee” needs to be better defined. Checks and balances should be in place for reporting to public.
John Dorman: Difficulty in allowing discretion being used by one person, specifically the CDS director. Calls out specific portions of the proposed amendment where this could be an issue. No review or approval process by public. Items should at least be moved to consent where they can be addressed.
Rebuttal:
Kyle: “Designee is not defined”. Simply means someone that is qualified. Tracking mechanism: we’re tracking better than we’ve ever tracked. Within 24 hour period, every planning document is entered into digital record. As far as significant approvals, we do the best of our ability. If I screw up, I can get fired.
Commissioners would like to put in an annual check to see if there are changes that are needed to this amendment.
Motion is resubmitted.
Vote to approve and move to BOCC: Yea-7 Nay-0 Not in attendance-2
Amendment to Elbert County Subdivision Regulations, Replace Section to Existing Section XII. E
Address already illegal parcels and to bring in to accordance with current regulations. This happened during economic downturn when the banks had only loaned money on a small portion of a parcel, and then the rest of the parcel never was zoned property and owner defaulted, etc. This process is initiated by owner. This is for zoned XX and NZ properties.
Public Comment: None
Planning Commission Discussion:
Helping again with the language Kyle put out and doesn’t seem proper.
Dan Rosales says he has concerns over this one violating State Statutes. Vince Harris has been a new voice of reason regarding regulations.
Kyle would like to continue this to a date certain to determine if it’s legal. County counsel will be advised.
Motion to continue to August 22, 2017. Seconded.
Kyle thanks commissioners for their diligence in helping with these issues and helping with the language after claiming she’s tired and it’s late, even though all the language had been written during a normal workday.
Vote to continue: Yea-7 Nay-0 Not in attendance-2
Amendment to Elbert County Zoning Regulations, Part II, Section 16, PUD To Address Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
This is for unplanned PUDs and PUDs that propose creative use. Development Guide calls out these changes, where there are multiple lot sizes, and types. Instead of pointing to the Development Guide, they pointed to covenants. New section is proposed to take these lots to the most restrictive type.
Dan asks if this will give PC authority to enforce zoning rules? Long discussion where Kyle continues to reiterate it’s just for these strange instances.
One commissioner’s book doesn’t show the correct documents, Kyle goes to help him.
Public Comment:
Brooke Decker: Brings up contradictions in the Development Guide and this PUD amendment. This is bypassing regulations, and allows the CDS director to have too much power, with no public input. We need to follow the rules. Do not recommend this.
Jackie Tugwell: Colorado Revised Statutes are in place for PUDs, and the county needs to follow those. Even though there’s a Development Guide, we still need to follow the CRS. These are procedures to protect citizens and the county. Do not recommend this.
Rebuttal:
Kyle spent public comment looking through her book for the correct place for the commissioner's book instead of listening so she could respond. Most of these PUDs are 20 years or more with no description. We’re mimicking what other PUDs of the time did. If you want to null and void the hundreds and hundreds of lots in this situation and have their zoning revert, go for it.
Kyle believes we should continue this one as well due to the possibility of the legality of this.
There was some discussion about regulations that need to be followed and court cases.
Kyle says we need to get out of the building before 11pm or the alarms go off, so the meeting ends abruptly with the following:
Motion to continue to August 22, 2017 with legal counsel help.
Vote: Yea- 6 Nay-1 Not in attendance-2
Adjournment at 10:43 pm
-Todd Thalimer