Eventually the veins in your arm go out and then you go to your legs and your ankles. And so it was one big lie but the easiest way for me was just not to have any communication with anyone. And that's what I did. Kind of like Bin Laden hiding up in the mountains. That was me. I went to private schools in Louisville. I'm well educated. I had every opportunity in life, but addiction does not discriminate. It does not discriminate. I think it's just a preconceived notion that we pigeonhole what an addict should look like, and we need to bust through that misconception, definitely. I think people want to see the image of the heroin addict in an alley behind a dumpster getting high. And that's what I remember as a kid. That's just not accurate. In Louisville alone, since 2011, we've had a 650% increase in heroin deaths. So it's affecting everybody. Our fastest growing population is young men and women age 18 to 25, most of them from good families. I was working for an attorney in Cincinnati wearing a suit and tie to work every day and shooting heroin in the bathroom, you know, and nobody knew. Where it is a disease exactly like cancer or leukemia or what have you, it can strike anyone at any time, no matter your age, your race, your socioeconomic status. It does not discriminate. It doesn't discriminate who it affects and who it hurts. It is a disease. And I feel like the stigma associated with drug addiction, it's not even there with other addictions. Like to me, even alcoholics don't have that. People don't look at them the same as they look at a drug addict. But that's the lowest of the low. I feel like some people, a lot of people feel like even a gambling addiction is not looked at, sex addiction is not looked at the same. So I feel like if we can get away from that, even for the addict, I feel like they even feel that way about themselves because it's been ingrained. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. So anyone that does plan to speak and testify, if you would at this time, stand and raise your right hand and simply answer the question, do you swear that all the information that you will give today shall be the truth? Okay, thank you. We have no minutes to approve today, so at this point we'll move to any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. Today I'm here with Wheaton-Ladenberger. the plan that we would request a postponement for is on page 4, the middle of the page, DP 2016-8, patch and place subvision unit 1, lot 4. We have some revised conditions in our possession, but we'd like another two-week duration to let the staff and us work together to fully digest the changes that have been made on the plan. Okay, thank you. That will be February 25th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Mr. Chair. Yes. move postponement of DP 2016-8 until February 25th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Mrs. Plumlee. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Others? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of MIA Brookhaven LLC. Turn your attention to page 3, item B on your agenda. This is a plan we've delayed a couple of times now. Had a very productive meeting with staff yesterday. I think both staff and the applicant believe it would be good if this went through the subcommittee process again to incorporate some of that feedback. So we'd ask for one month to take it all the way through the process, but I think we're going to be ready to go on this one. So I'd ask to March 10th, please. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move postpone of DP 2015-114 Brookhaven subdivision until March 10. Motion is seconded by Ms. Richardson as well. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Other requests? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Hello, Abby Jones. item DP 2016-7 Beaumont Farm Unit 1 Section 5 Lot 10. There's been some changes to the building that have come up with the client and we would like a 30-day postponement. It was in the consent agenda but we'd like to get those last few changes on file. Okay. Thank you. That's at the bottom of page 3 item C. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for postponement of DP-2000-2016-7 Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 10. For 30 days. Okay, thank you. Motion is made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee. For postponement, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Other requests for postponements? Withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Mark McCain. I'd like to bring your attention to page 5, item H, DP2016-12 Loudon Park edition. I would like to request postponement to the March 10th meeting. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes. Mr. Chair, it will postpone the B2 2016 at 12. Thank you. Motion is made. Ms. Plumlee is seconded by Mr. Wilson for postponement until March 10th. Allowed in park additions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Other requests? Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm going to postpone seven items. Starting on page 2, item D, Greendale Hills Unit 2C, request a one-month postponement to March 10th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for postponement of Plan 2016-4F for one month. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of Greendale Hills, Plan 2016-4F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. On page 5, item G, this is DP 2016-11 Turflin Mall, 26th Amendment, requesting a one-month postponement to March 10th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, move postponement of DP 2016-11 Turflin. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement DP 2016-11 Turfland Mall. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Yes, sir. On page 6, DP 2004-66 Kingston Hall Unit 1, request a one-month postponement to March 10th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponements? Commission members? Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move postponement of DP-2004-66, Kingston Hall, Unit 1 to March 10. Motion is made by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. This postponement 2004-66. Motion passes. Yes, sir. Next one in order is DP-2007-141, New Market Property, Unit 8. Request a one-month postponement. Thank you. That's at the bottom of page six. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Motion. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, we'll move for postponement for DP 2007-141 New Market Property, Unit 8. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for, did you say one month, I believe? Yes. Yes, okay. DP 2007-141 New Market Properties. Please vote. Motion passes. Yes, sir. Top of page 7, item K, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 6, request a one-month postponement to March 10th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? I'll get a recording for this. Commission members, Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for postponement of DP 2012-80 for one month. Thank you. The motion is made and was seconded by Mr. Smith. Postponement for one month, DP 2012-80. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Yes, sir. Next item on the page, DP 2004-67, Kingston Hall Unit 2. Request of one month postponement to March 10th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, motion? Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move postponement of DP 2004-67 Kingston Hall to March 10. Thank you. Motion is made and seconded by Mrs. Richardson for postponement for one month. Please vote. Motion passes. Yes, sir. And top of page 8, item M, DP 2012-89, New Market Property, Unit 10, request a one-month postponement to March 10th. Commission, I'm sorry, audience? Commission members? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir? Move postponement of DP 2012-89. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Smith. Postponement, DP 2012-89, New Market Properties. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. So, at this point, I'm not sure what is left. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? We'll move to the Kassin agenda, if anything's left on it. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Staff does have one item. Oh, I'm sorry. One item. We can't match Mr. Cayley's performance. But we would like to draw your Commission's attention to page one, the first item under final subdivision plans. That's Plan 2015-137F, Boonesboro Manor Subdivision Unit 1. We have received a communication from that applicant for a one-month postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Richardson? I move a postponement for one month to March 10th, Plan 2015-137F. And that motion is seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests? If not, I think we may have one or two items left on the consent agenda. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Actually, there are four items remaining on your consent agenda, which is half of its printed version. Be glad to review those plans with you at this time. There are two final subdivision plans that are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is the item appearing at the top of page 2, item B of your meeting agenda, Plan 2016-2F, a final record plat for patch-in-place subdivision unit 1. This property has an address of 2800 and 2890 Richmond Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item C, Plan 2016-3F, Boonesboro Manor Subdivision, Block A, Unit 1. This is an amended final record plat for property having an address of 5355 Athens-Boonesboro Road. There are also two development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that are on the consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item E of your meeting agenda, DP 2016-9, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1, Parcel 3. This property has an address of 2309 Sir Barton Way. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 5, item F, is also on the consent agenda, DP 2016-10, Coventry, also known as Belmont Farm, Lot 4. This property has an address of 2470 Remington Way. Mr. Chairman, at this time, these four remaining items on your consent agenda could be considered for approval, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask that it be removed at this time to allow it to be further discussed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as amended and read. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda. What was left of it is read. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote. That motion passes. Thank you. We do have a few items surprisingly left on the agenda today. It looks like we're going to have a fun time in March, but we'll get on with today. At page 3, top of page 3, under Development Plans, DP 2014-13, Growth Properties, this is a development plan that was in indefinite postponement for a few months. there have been some revisions and the revisions are on a purple sheet that is before you and as you can see from that the staff is recommending approval apparently there's some new information that's come to light and we'd be interested in hearing that information Let me ask before Mr. Martin gets started, anyone besides Mr. Carter, anyone else in the audience interested in this? A couple? Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is DP 2014-13, growth properties amended. That is on your agenda for your consideration today. This is an amended final development plan for property that is located Nicholasville Road and Goodrich Avenue in this location. Southland Drive is down here in this direction. Back that way would be UK, Central Baptist, Cherokee Place, those parts of our community. This is the last street before you get to Southland. And, of course, now there is an access easement, a street into the motel, the bowling alley, the shell station on the corner. Okay, that's there at Southland Drive. So this is the area. You have a Mexican restaurant and I think a cell phone store located. Back when this property was originally developed, the development plan covered this front part and back, and it picked up this rear lot as well. Now, this is on B1, but this is R3 in the rear. And as I said, this has been developed for commercial use for quite some time. This lot has remained vacant for many years now under this development plan, about 16 years or so. The amendment that you see before you is to allow a single-family home to be built on this lot. The lot at one time was approved as a parking area, and that has never come to fruition, has not been done. So this amendment will allow, as I said, a single-family home to be built on this lot. Now, that being said, there is a history, a long history, of stormwater problems in this area. And those stormwater problems certainly impacted this lot, as well as neighbors and other folks historically in this area. In fact, if you go down Goodrich to the end towards the railroad, the city purchased property down there that was in the floodplain because of a history of flood problems in the area. The FEMA floodplain itself has had a map revision that has reduced the size of the floodplain in this area, and that was done with the hotel development that you approved a few years ago, and I know you all remember that. So the floodplain's actually been amended in the area. However, there have remained stormwater issues, long-term, old, existing stormwater issues in the area. Primarily, the problem, Goodrich was platted in 1927. And so this was built in that time period. and there is a stormwater inlet in this location and a pipe that flows down through here that carries the stormwater in this direction. Over the years, the water has overflowed that inlet and it's flowed across this property and it would flow down in here and head downstream towards where the hotel is and the bowling alley in that way. There has been a history of flooding in these backyards, a serious problem for those folks, and the primary cause for that was there used to be a wall back in here that acted as a dam that impeded the flow of that stormwater. Now, several things have happened with the development of the hotel. The wall's been torn out. It's gone. They've also built superior facilities on the hotel property. and so that now allows that storm water to flow on out and into the facilities and go where it's supposed to go which is ultimately in the creek and on down southland drive in that direction however as this was brought into planning and for our review and your consideration concern remained about this inlet and the overflow on this lot and that was our primary concern was the usability of this lot for a single family home and so that's why it was withdrawn for a period of time so the applicant could continue to work with the various agencies to figure out how to address this problem and create a place where someone could build a home here's a driveway park their car and that sort of thing and be safe from the stormwater that was flowing over this property towards this basin in this area and on down what we have worked out with the applicant along with engineering water quality we met with the applicant and stressed with them once again this overflows the problem the impact on this lot's the problem i i can tell you we are pleased like everyone else, that the development with the hotel has really assisted in this problem. I mean, no one can help but be pleased with that and how that's worked out. However, the drainage area that was flowing onto Goodrich and was hitting this still had that overflow problem. That's public water. It's nothing that they created, but it was something that we said, you're going to have to work with us to address it before you can develop that lot. What they have proposed to do, and you have a handout. There's two handouts, I believe. One is this one. And the other one is just a close-up of the house and where this feature is going to be located. What has proposed to be done is a swell will be constructed. and that swell will be located in this area. And it will collect that overflow water, direct it to the rear of the property where there is going to be an additional feature as part of that swell that will allow the water to spread out and be dissipated so that then it will flow overland and it will go to the basin. It will no longer be concentrated. But they are maintaining the controls to deal with this problem on the property that they control. They don't control this property any longer. This has all been sold. So that has come about after several meetings and several communications and a sit-down about how to address that. And so that's the solution. There are several conditions on your agenda, on your handout, that address that. And this is just an example. This is not a finished product. Mr. Pardon, if I may, could you put this up on the board? Certainly. I'm sorry. I thought we had handed it to them out. Oh, there it is. It's up there now. Thank you. What was agreed upon, again, as I said, it was the construction of this swell. The house itself may be an aspect and play a part in the construction of that swell, which is why you see this particular example on the plan. Now, there is a condition you can see on your lavender handout, and it's number 14, and it says detailed design geometry of the overflow swell shall be denoted on the development plan to the approval of the Division of Engineering. So this isn't a finished product, but they're going to have to provide detailed geometry. on this swell, on the development plan. And that is rare. We don't do that very often and that sort of thing. But in this case, we think it's entirely appropriate. They agree with us, and that is going to be done. In addition, there will be no certificate of occupancy issued until that swell and the stormwater controls are constructed and approved. Anyone who buys this lot and wants to build a house is going to have to build this feature before they can occupy the house. That's the key. We don't want a house built on this property until this drainage control is in place. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm going to back up your handout with the conditions. An easement minor subdivision plat shall be recorded prior to certification that will create the necessary easements on this property. As I stated, this is public water that they're having to deal with. This will be a public stormwater easement on their property. In addition, as I mentioned, the house that will be built there eventually may be an aspect of this swell. It may be incorporated in and act as part of that swell. Therefore, they are going to have to denote a finished floor elevation on this residence. And, of course, that's also contingent upon the exact geometry that is approved by engineering. So there is a finished floor elevation, and you can see it, but that won't necessarily be the ultimate finished floor elevation. Hence that condition. There are two other conditions that apply to this property that are important, and they're also historic in terms of how old this neighborhood is and how this property was developed. One of those is they show a 20-foot building line. There is a condition that they have a 30-foot building line so that they line up with the existing homes in this neighborhood. And as I said, these homes go back to the 1920s, and we think that's important that they match that setback in the neighborhood. In addition, when this property was developed, and I mentioned they were planning a parking lot at one time back here, there was no access to Goodrich from this parking area. Well, obviously, with a single-family home and the need for a driveway, we have a condition on the plan that states that there will be no access from the B-1 property, the commercial property, through this property to Goodrich. And that's just to ensure that single-family home, driveway, no commercial access, which was the intent on the original approval of the plan. And so with that, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Let me ask you one. Yes, sir. Did I understand you right? You said that the builder of the property would be responsible for building this well? Yes, sir. That's how it's currently designed. You know, a buyer who's going to build a house, not necessarily the seller or the owner now? That is correct. Okay. The house is an integral part of the stormwater solution. Okay. Any other questions, Jesse? Floodplain. I may have missed what you said about that. There's been a map revision. Is there a floodplain on this lot? No, sir. It's been reduced officially by a map revision. And the floodplain actually in that area has returned to its 1992 area way down by Regency Road and closer to the railroad. Okay, so this swale would not become a floodplain? Oh, no, sir. There is no floodplain anymore in this area. There wouldn't be any risk of the house? No, no, sir. Okay. Any other questions? Captain? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. One thing I'd like to add to what Mr. Martin said was when the Hampton Inn was constructed, there was a 12-inch storm line coming out of this basin. And when we were working on Hampton, we discovered that the 12-inch line was basically packed solid and there was no water going through it at all. So with that and the wall, there was literally no place for the water to go. Since they've been removed, the basin has had no flooding problems to date. Also, the 12-inch pipe, we upsized it to a 15-inch just to allow more water, should something ever happen, to go through. But other than that, we're good with these conditions. and I would be willing to answer any questions you may have. Any questions, Mr. Carter? No. Thank you, sir. All right. Others that would like to speak in regards to this? I have a question. Come forward. Your name, sir? My name is Neil Metcalf. I'm the property manager for the B-1 property that's there, just here on behalf of the ownership of Jermon Properties. This is the first notice that I've had a chance to take a look at this and just wanted to know if Mr. Marker or anybody could address this, what is the impact on the detention back there, and then where the water will be flowing through there, if there's any impact to our property at all. Okay. We'll try and get that here in just a minute. Let's gather everything first. Thank you, sir. Others? Yes, ma'am. My name is Tenley Terrier. I live on the property across the street from the empty lot. And, I mean, I brought pictures of the flooding, but anybody that's been on the commission for a while has seen the pictures of the flooding. And as far as I know, I agree with this man here. The retention basin does seem to be working a whole lot better since the hotel has added the new pipes. The water actually drains out of the retention basin. And the only concern I have, and I only brought my iPad because I didn't really know how else to do this, so I don't know if I can show it to him and he can make it show what I want to show. How do I do this? Take it over there. I think they can put it up on the screen. And if you'll grab the microphone, you can come over here and talk to it. Speak to it from there, either one. We'll do our best. We'll drop the lights. That's a really bad one. Okay, that's probably not the best one. I'm sorry. On the iPad, it looks a whole lot better. Oh, it looks a whole lot better. Yeah, this isn't working. I'm sorry. This, okay, you see the big bunch of water streaming? That's hopefully where they're going to build this well, because this is Goodrich flooding in 2015, and that's the water still going across the property. The difference now is the water used to come from the retention basin towards Goodrich and flood, so we would have the flooding that we already had on Goodrich along with the retention basin and the water coming back. And I can show you pictures of that whole property completely underwater. But now the problem is because our stormwater problem is still so bad that, and the city has told me consistently there's no plan to fix the stormwater pipes, that that water is flowing. It appears to me to be that the low point where all that water is running, and it is running from Goodrich back towards the retention basin, is where they're going to put the swell, or however you say that word. But I can't say that the water won't flood across the property somewhere else if we have bad enough water on Goodrich, which we often do because there's actually three stormwater outlets inlets whatever the word is that are all within 10 feet of each other and they all go to the same line and go there and so when they all flood at the same time we have flooding on our street sometimes almost covering my sidewalk definitely covering that property and the sidewalk property of the house next to it I don't know. Maybe I can show you one. Microphone. Oh, sorry. Okay. I live here, and so we have actually three storm inlet things. We have one here, one here, and one here, one here, and one there. and they all come together and they all run through here to the retention basin. So when all three of them are clogged up, which happens on a regular basis right now, if we had significant rain today, we would have massive flooding on our street because they are covered with leaves. They recently paved our road. The inlet things are about 12 inches by 12 inches. We have so many leaves on our street, it is totally packed. And I have gone out there in the middle of rainstorms before to try to keep it from flooding across the street. So, if the swell will work, and I hope it does, I'm totally for this house being here. I would love to see a house on this property. I just would hate for somebody to move into this house and come out their front door and go, shoot, there's two feet of water on my property. What am I going to do? And I'm not totally clear. I did talk to the man from Vision Engineering how high up, because along with this being the low part of this part of Goodrich, this property is also a foot to two feet lower than the houses on both sides of the property. So they said they're going to build it up, and I hope that works too. So we've got a lot of water, a low property, and bad stormwater. Pipe all in the same place. Again, I hope this well works. Thank you, ma'am. Others that would like to speak? Okay. Sounded like we've got a couple of questions. Mr. Carter, I don't know if you want to try and answer them, impact as far as the detention, and then also can you provide any information as to the other pipes or inlets? Sure. The detention basin that's there, it backs up to the property. We've actually surveyed it recently, and it backs up right to our property line. As far as impact to it, we won't be impacting. We won't be crossing the property line. We'll do our swale. Right now the water is already going there, and as you saw in the video, that's where our swale is going to be. So we'll still be directing the water exactly where it's going today. It's just there will be a house to the right of the swale. as far as flood elevation for the house or finished floor elevation, we will determine the 100-year elevation that the water gets in the road, and our finished floor will be two feet higher than that. Okay. Any information as to the other pipes or inlets that she mentioned? Well, the only ones I know of, there's two in the road, and I'm not sure what the third one is. It may be on the lady's property. On the backside of one of the inlets, it opens up to a ditch that runs along her property. Is that the third entry? Okay. And the problem is, as she said, leaves get over the inlets. The inlets are really too small, and we would hope that someday the city would come in and do the right thing and put in new catch basins and new storm lines. But there definitely is a problem in the road, and I know she's been out there cleaning leaves. I've seen her do that, and probably the people that would live in this house might be doing the same thing. But I guess that's the landlets I know of that she's speaking of. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions from Mr. Carter? Yes, sir. I don't know if this is to Mr. Carter, just a simple question. If the swell does not work, what happens? Well, the swell will work. It's where the water's flowing right now. It'll actually work better because right now it's uneven and it's kind of indulating the elevation. We will make it a consistent grade down, and it'll have a consistent width. And I just don't see how it couldn't work. The depth can vary in it depending on how much rain, but our swell will have slopes on it to account for that. And the finished floors, we've checked on either side, and they're above the finished floor that we would be proposing. So the swell is not going to solve the problem of water out in the street. It's just creating a place where the water can flow, and that's where it's flowing right now, to the basin in the back. Well, again, I'm not sure exactly where this goes, but okay, let's say the swell works, but the inlets, the outlets on the top over there on Goodridge Avenue do not. They're clogged up, as you said, and you indicated that it would be better to have a larger pipe or whatever the case may be. But obviously right now it's clogging up. It's still causing a lot of flooding issues as such. Whose responsibility is that? i mean what's the city's infrastructure and and the city needs to replace it and they're aware of that they just they have no plan to do it right now okay thank you hillary do you mind want to come down let me ask one other question mr carter um you've referenced a couple of times that you or you your applicant plans to build the swell build the house and so forth is that the intention that your applicant is going to do this? Yeah, it would not work if you go out and build the swale now because when you build the house, it's common to build swales on the sides of your houses once you get your brick up. And that's kind of the last thing they do when they shape the yards is they build the swales. And this would be no different. The only difference, I guess, would be that there would be some geometry that they would have to match the width and side slopes, but that would be the appropriate time. And then before they could get their CO for the house, we would have to come out and certify that the swell was constructed as design and will function as design. Okay, thank you. Ms. Plumney, do you have a question? Yeah, I plead ignorant here. A swell, the definition, is it cement lined? No, it'll be a grass, just a grass ditch. Basically, it's just going to look like the yard, but you won't be able to put air conditioner units in it. You can't put trees in it. You can't obstruct it. So it'll just be a grass ditch, but it won't be the traditional ditch you're used to seeing. it'll be wider and flatter in the cross section and it'll have at least a 1 to 1.5 percent slope from the road down to the basin. Okay. Thank you. Hillard, anything to add on this? I think they'd like to hear something as far as the inlets. Any plans? Yeah, I'm not aware of any plans that the city has to do a project in the area to improve the curb inlets or the storm system. We met earlier this week with a gentleman from Water Quality and he confirmed that there wasn't a foreseeable plan for improvements there to the infrastructure. But in the direction that we've given the applicant was to, you know, since the property is the, or has historically been the overflow path from the drainage from the street, was to demonstrate that he could continue to convey that safely and not impact new improvements on this property or the neighboring properties. So that's what we're going to achieve. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, can you hear us? Well, I guess, of course I don't live in the neighborhood, but speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, so to speak, if the city is not planning on doing anything about those inlets, would they not at least clean them out? I mean, what would a homeowner need to do in order to make sure that they are functioning in a way that they could get the water out? Otherwise, they're going to be flooded. Yeah, I guess our division of streets and roads is a maintenance division for the streets and possibly even division of water quality for storm structures and things. So that would be an avenue for the neighbors, too. So you'd recommend at least that they go to the streets and services or streets and whatever and ask for help? Probably the best route to go would be to go through LexCol. And if you observe the inlets being clogged, file an incident report there with LexCol, and they can route it to the appropriate parties there for maintenance. Okay, thank you. Kind of a situation of squeaky wheel gets the grease? The squeaky wheel gets the grease? Yes, I suppose. Never mind. Any other questions? Staff, have anything as far as rebuttal? No? Yes, ma'am, did you have anything else? Come forward real quick. I didn't mean to make you run. Okay. I call Jake. You know, I mean, this is not a once-a-year problem. This is every single month. problem. They come out, they clean out the leaves, the leaves come back. We have some people that don't clean their leaves out. And this is the low point for the first half of Goodrich. So everything, my husband raked leaves out of our gutter one more time the other day. I mean, we've done this many, many, many times. We do this every, I mean, I could call every month. If somebody wants to put it in writing and just put it part of the routine that they come by every month and do this that would be really great i mean it's not like i call once a year this happens with the inlet many many times a year so i don't know what has to happen to get our name on the list to have this addressed if you guys know the answer to that question, I'd love to hear it. As I said, maybe the squeaky wheel gets grease. Mr. Drake? That's what I'm wrestling with, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure I understand the speaker. What do you want us to do as a planning commission? Are you asking that we approve or disapprove the applicant's request? No, I think the house there would be nice. I think that would be really nice. I just want to know what to do about the stormwater issue and the clogged drains. And you probably are not the right people to ask that question to. That's what I'm wrestling with. What can I do about it? I don't know. If you have some way to talk to the stormwater people and make them put us at least on the list, somewhere on the list? In our purview, that's the problem we're facing. Right. Okay. Thank you. I would have to say with this being aired, I'm sure there's several that's listing, and hopefully it's registering somewhere. As far as this revised plan, personally, I think it would be of benefit. Yes, sir? Real quick. We're about ready to move on. I'm Bud Feigl. I'm the president of the WGPL Neighborhood Association, and I've lived there on Goodrich for 38 years, and I've looked at this problem for that many years. I've got to thank these guys over here on the planning staff. I think they've brought this problem a long way from where it's been, and I've talked to a lot of people in our neighborhood about it, and we've had a lot of entries on our Facebook page about this and some photographs as well. And I believe WGPLs are very much in favor of this. I think if we can get what's on this plan here, it takes us way down the street to getting a house there. And I think that's obviously the most desirable thing. I assume that the contractor or the developer or the property owner that's there now is ultimately going to build a house there. and I guess he's going to fill the grade, raise the elevation to the floor and probably burn up against that foundation for the house and the swell will be there and I think it's a big improvement and I hope you all will approve it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're about ready to move on. Any other questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part of hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'm going to make a motion for approval. The swell is much exaggerated the way we normally do around new houses, so the fact that it's getting the water out of there faster might even help it come off that street faster. So I'm going to move approval of DP 2014-13. The revised conditions. The revised conditions. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval, seconded by Mr. Berkley of DP 2014-13 with the new 14 revised conditions. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks to the neighbors and good luck and hopefully this will help. We will move on to, I believe, what is next is page 8. It's a minor subdivision plan, Plan 2016-7C, Big Run Industrial Park. You do have a green sheet with conditions on it. Good afternoon. You've got it right. It's Big Run Road, and it's off of Stone Road. We have Stone Road here, New Circle Roads out here, Pasadena's up this way. Just a few months ago, we had a development plan to put in a storage unit. There's individual storage units here, and they were coming in to put in two buildings. They've come back to do a consolidation plan so that they can put those buildings on this property. But also, when they were viewing the development plan, we also talked about dedication of right-of-way. So this is a minor plan, and we're bringing it in front of you because they want to dedicate the public right-of-way in front of this property. The staff has reviewed it, and we came up with the conditions that are listed on the green sheet, recommending approval with these following conditions, a few sign-offs, and just a couple changing the planning certification and adding commission date. And also, we wanted to ask them to denote the timing of the improvements to Stone Road as to with the construction of the structures. With that, is there any questions? Sorry, any questions? Nope. Thank you. The applicant here to add anything? I'm here. I don't know if I had anything. John Hunt, representing Space Center Warehouse. as Cheryl described. Basically, yes, we're just trying to consolidate some lots. Happy to give you guys some land. Relatively happy to make improvements on the road to even do it. As far as time frame, my owner is ready to go now. They're actually on me to get the plans going. So to give you an idea, the road improvements will be done before the buildings are done. That's no problem. That's a condition I'm happy to put on the record plat. that's not a problem to me at all. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thanks, Mr. Hunt. Any questions, Mr. Hunt? Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Commission members, ready? Motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of plan 2016-day 7C Big Run Industrial Park Unit 3 with the conditions as provided by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for Plan 2016-7C. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. We do have one other minor subdivision plan on an addendum. It's attached to the back of your agenda. It's Plan 2016-10E, Chancellor's Subdivision, The Springs. Good afternoon. Yes, we're on Harrodsburg Road. We're Chancellor Properties. We're the Old Springs Motel. This is Harrodsburg Road, Lane Allen, Mitchell Avenue. We've talked about that with the townhomes. Right now, this being developed, We had the raising canes, and then we have an office building and another professional office building here in the rear. They've come in and added an access easement. With the access easement, you're only allowed to cross one lot, and they are crossing multiple lots, so therefore we have to bring that in front of you all for your all's approval. So they're showing the access easement to cross a couple lots to get into the different lotting arrangements. This does match the development plan where the access easement is. So with that, the staff has recommended approval with the conditions listed here on the plan. A couple sign-offs, again, changing the certification and adding today's approval date. And if there's any questions. Questions? Nope. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Not here. Apparently not. Anyone else in the audience? If not, I think we can move on. We entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the Plan 2016-10E, Chancellor or Subdivision, the Springs Lots 1C1, C2, and D, with the conditions provided by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of Plan 2016-10E. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. The remaining item of the release and call of bonds is cell tower, bottom of page 8. As they're setting up, I'll let Mr. Cravens make his motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Memorandum dated today, February 11, 2016. That is before you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for the release and call of bonds. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Cell tower is next. Ms. Rackers coming up. This is... Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here on the cell tower hearing, objecting to it, but I'm not here for me. There's a gentleman in the audience, Mr. Carroll Ware, who wanted to put his input in. He has to leave at 2.30. So I told him I would point out to you and ask if he could come up and speak first in order to say a very short piece to you so he could do that before he has to leave. He's going to leave at 2.30. I'm sure we can accommodate you. Yes, sir. I planned on speaking, so I didn't swear in. So I swear to tell the truth. Thank you, sir. Really, the input that I have is I have a family farm there, and I just built my home there just a little over a year ago, and there was a lot of requirements for me to be able to do so. I had to be on 40 acres, and there was a lot of things I had to do to preserve that area to maintain the rural and agricultural nature of this part of town. my father wanted to be here but we've been in the hospital all night so he's got some health problems but he was also raised on the farm he was there before the interstate was there the interstate cuts cuts our farm in half now and you can look at pictures of before the interstate was there and it kind of makes you sick now to that our community has become what it has but that's It's a little off topic. But, you know, we understand, you know, there is a cell tower there. But we would, you know, anything over 200 feet is not desirable to me for the lights. I already am lit up like a city block with interstate lights. But also, you know, as small and as invisible as possible as far as the type of structure, maybe a monopole-type structure. You know, it can be seen. I live two doors down from where this tower is, and you can see it from my house, and you can also see it from Winchester Road. So it just, you know, I don't know how much I can object to the cell tower being there, but I do know it's a very small property. you know i guess if the tower were to fall it would fall on one of three three other people's properties so again from a technical standpoint i don't have too much to offer but i hate to you know first see the interstate then you see the interstate lights and i see cell tower you know we're we're coming close to a gas station so but that's about all i have with that so Thank you, Mr. Ware. We wish your father a speedy recovery. I was going to ask, you said two, I think you said two doors down or something. About how far are you from this property? I'm probably, the way the bird flies, between a quarter and a half mile. Okay. But there's one other piece of property. Yeah, there's the Jimmy Thornberry's next door to me, and then I think this is in the middle of his dad's property, which is next door to him. Okay. All right. Thank you. We will take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Rackers. Good afternoon. Before we get started, I have some letters. There are several letters of opposition, and there's one that is only in opposition if the tower has lights on it. Otherwise, he's okay with it. Okay, this is the first cell tower application that we've had this year, CT 2016-1. It's on page 8 of your agenda. This is an application made by Subcarrier Communications, Inc., and the property is located at 3347 Haley Road. Okay, here we go. Here is Winchester Road. This is Haley Road, and this is a teeny-weeny little property right in there. It's just about one acre in size. The interstate is up here, and then Cleveland Road is right along there. The property is about 1,700 feet north of Winchester Road, and what they want to do is replace an existing tail tower, which is about 160 feet tall. It's a guide tower that was built in the 1960s. older than what I originally thought it was. I thought it was built in the 1990s, but it's the 1960s. And they want to replace it with a lattice tower that would be 195 feet tall with a four-foot lightning arrestor. And for FAA purposes, the 199 feet is the height of the tower. The purpose of this is to augment service in the area. And the existing tower only has two wireless phone service carriers on it, and they want to accommodate four. and they need to provide an upgrade service in the northern portion of Fayette County and that has been stated on two other applications that we've had in the rural service area. Those were both disapproved and then this one, they do need the service in the rural area. The new tower will allow that to happen and the existing tower that they have now is not strong enough to accommodate two more carriers. The proposed tower will be structurally larger and more strong. And Bill, if you could put those two up, I've got a picture of what is actually there now and what they're proposing. This is the type of tower that's there now. It's got two antenna arrays on it, and then this is what they're proposing. It's a lattice structure, and those would be the four phone carriers. it's a three-sided structure and it would be 18 feet across the bottom at the base and then at the top it would be 4 feet across new towers are usually steel monopoles the ones that we've reviewed in the last I don't know how many years have all been steel monopoles that's generally the tower of choice because of its stability in the lower profile and I asked about this one when I got the application in why they were proposing the lattice tower as opposed to a steel monopole, and I was told that the steel monopole would have to be taller than 200 feet to accommodate what they want to do, and that didn't make any sense to me at the time because we've had towers that are less than 195 feet that have had four carriers on them. But I will let Mr. Walborn explain to you, and hopefully there is an engineer here that can explain that because that is one of the things that we have asked. But if it can be explained logically, then that's acceptable, I think. The staff doesn't have any expertise on that kind of thing, so hopefully there is somebody here that can explain it. But whatever the type that you approve, assuming that you do approve the replacement tower, the existing tower will be removed once the other one is up and operational. It will be located within the existing compound. Bill, if you could put the aerial photo up there, please. It's about a one-acre property, and the compound is almost central to the property. It's kind of hard to see the property line. This is the property line of the property, and it's got fencing on this side and on this side and partially on this side, and this side of the property is open to the remainder of the farm that it used to be part of. It's owned by the applicant, and it was probably created by Deed years and years and years ago when the first tower was put up to accommodate the tower. That was way before our 10-acre or our 40-acre requirement. With this application, they're asking to enlarge the equipment area by about 425 square feet. They want the perimeter fencing to match the existing, which is chain link with barbed wire at the top. That's for security purposes. And they don't have any screening around the base of the tower, which is one of the requirements of Article 25 because it was put up way before we had Article 25. And so that will be a requirement for approval. And because it is a new tower, it's larger and it's in a different location. That is why if it was going to be replaced in kind with the same size, in the same location, same kind of tower, we probably wouldn't ask them to screen it. Currently, there's a one-to-one height-to-yard ratio for towers in the AR zone. And the tower as it is now at 160 feet doesn't meet the one-to-one height-to-yard ratio on any side. But because it's going to be taller and because it's going to be moved a little bit closer to this property line, it is going to be even more nonconforming. And once it's constructed, it will be closer to a 3 to 1 height-to-yard ratio, which is the height-to-yard ratio that is allowed in all zones except for residential and agricultural. Without a variance, they would be limited, again, to the replacement of in-kind at the same height in the same location. This is a similar situation to what we had with the Duke Road cell tower back in 2013. That was put there. It was approved by the Public Service Commission at a certain height. It didn't meet any of the height-to-yard ratio that we currently have. The height was increased. The Planning Commission waived that requirement. It was you considered it justified, we considered it justified. It was for the purpose of not having to put more towers in the area. It's the same situation here, and we see this justified as well. The land use recommendation for the property was from the Rural Land Management Plan back in 1999, and that was for CARL, which is core agricultural and rural land use. That carried through the 2001 and the 2007 comprehensive plans, and that's even though the tower was on the property since the 1960s. The earlier plans, the 2001 and 2007, had specific goals and objectives relative to the provision of services, To Fayette County citizens, the 2013 plan doesn't specifically say the same thing as the 2001 and 2007, but it does support this kind of thing, and it makes those earlier goals and objectives still relevant. The 2013 plan is more generalized, but it does provide a level of support in the themes, the goals, and the text of the plan. It discusses provision and expansion of wireless service. And specific to the provision of cell service, it states that co-location should be encouraged in order to minimize the negative visual effects of any towers. This tower will allow that, and although it seems counterintuitive and contradictory, the larger, taller tower, with the intent to provide better service and reducing the need to have more towers in the area, it will actually go along with that. With the enhanced 911, it will actually minimize the need for additional towers, and so it will minimize negative visual effects in the area. That's consistent with the 2007 objective of providing essential public and private facilities and services in areas where they are nonexistent or inadequate. It's consistent with Chapter 2 of the 2013 plan, which encourages co-location for each site so as to minimize the need for additional towers. and it's consistent with Article 25 requirements of co-location whenever possible. The letter that was submitted with the uniform application, the cover letter, states the proposed tower meets both locational criteria and the design standards of Article 25. Well, technically that's true. It also states that it will not alter the character of the area because the replacement tower is a replacement tower and it's basically in the same location as the tower that's there now. That's debatable. It is a replacement tower, and it is in about the same location, but it's going to be much more visible than the one that's there now. And you can see this one from miles away. You can see this one from Cleveland Road, and you can see the one on Cleveland Road from this location. They're very visible once you know that they're there. But after a while, you don't notice that they're there. And so it's like, what do you do? that's why we recommended a steel monopole is because it has the lower profile and it would be more typical of the ones that are available now. And because we have no expertise in tower design and structural stability, we have asked that an engineer come and testify to that. And I'm not sure if Mr. Walborn has brought an engineer with him or not. He may have. But we have asked that an engineer testify to that to explain why the monopole would have to be taller than 200 feet and therefore have to be lighted. In considering this application relative to Article 25, it is not in a floodplain. It's not in a geological or environmentally sensitive area. It's not within 1,200 feet of an H1 area. The streets, adjoining streets are not state-designated scenic byways. Winchester Road is considered a scenic corridor, but that's not the same as a state-designated scenic byway. The proposed 199-foot tower doesn't meet the required height-to-yard ratio, but it doesn't meet it now at 160 feet. The requirement that the accessory structures meet the 25-foot distance along any adjoining residential zone does not apply. The property is completely surrounded by agricultural zoning, and it is located at least 650 feet from the nearest residence. There's adequate space for the required fence and landscaping between the equipment compound perimeter and the property boundary. There's no screening right now, but one of the conditions for approval is that they do that, that they comply with Article 25 requirements. The site isn't subject to a development plan, so no amendment is needed. Although a lattice tower is permitted in the AR zone, a steel monopole would be preferred due to its lower profile. It was stated by the applicant's attorney that a steel monopole would have to be taller than 200 feet, which would then require lighting. And it was believed that any lighting required by the FAA would be more detrimental to the area than the lattice structure. That's why that was chosen. This lot was created prior to the 40-acre minimum lot size in the AR zone, and it's not subject to a long-term lease, so we don't have to worry about that. It's its own property. and the proposal to construct a new tower and to increase its height is for the purpose of co-location, thereby eliminating the need for additional towers in the area, and that is encouraged by the zoning ordinance. And if you don't require the monopole, there is also the opportunity to require a stealth tower, which could be a water tower or a silo or anything that would fit in with a rural area. That is within your power. We've recommended approval of this for that reason or for those reasons, and there are three conditions for approval. Those are on your staff report and in your agenda. That would be that the tower be located on the site, as shown on the site layout, and unless an engineer registered in the state of Kentucky can verify that a lattice tower is preferable to a steel monopole for structural purposes as it relates to height, the tower is to be a steel monopole, or you can say a stealth tower, as opposed to the proposed lattice structure. Should the tower exceed 200 feet to include any lightning arresters, that it be lighted as required by the FAA. Two would be that the proposed tower meet all the requirements of Article 25 other than the height to yard ratio if that requirement is waived by the Planning Commission, and we see that as justified. And three would be that any applicable permits be obtained prior to construction. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Mr. Walborn is here to represent the applicant, and he can answer any other questions. Thank you, Ms. Rackers. Yes, right now, Ms. Plumlee? Yes, my question. is serviced by an asphalt road, right? It doesn't have to be. I mean, it probably should be paved to the site. And that may be a requirement of Article 25. I'd have to look to be sure that is. But other than that, it wouldn't have to be. Other questions? Yes, sir. I may be a little bit confused, Ms. Rikers. I just want to make sure. if the monopole requirement does necessitate a height greater than 200 feet in lighting, is that still the recommendation? That's up to you all. I mean, we would prefer a monopole if it has to be taller than 200 feet. That would require lighting. And, you know, people in the area don't want a period, but they don't want lighting in the area either so that would be that would be up to you to to decide other questions if if i read this correctly you got an existing situation that's non-compliant uh they're requesting to make it more non-compliant in multiple ways but they're pushing back on the one thing that the staff has said they wanted which would be a monopole not lattice is that right they said that they would do lattice but it would have to be 215 feet tall i mean not lattice monopole i'm sorry but it would have to be 215 feet tall and that would require lighting because it'd be over 200. i think that's from my perspective that's a non-starter i this is too nice of an area of green space to have a big lighted cell tower um i think it's only lighted on the top i think and it's it's a blinking light at night but yeah still like still see it um if you If you can't see, it's probably not a good thing to have there anyway. Anyway, so we have other monopoles in the city that we have approved that held the same number of carriers and antenna as this one would, but we don't have any reason yet as to why they're requesting more than... I am going to let Mr. Walborn address that, but I will say that I found out yesterday that they are actually, instead of asking for four wireless cell antennas, but they're also asking for three other antennas for 911 and some other purposes, and I'm going to let him address that because I didn't catch all of that yesterday. But there are additional besides the four, and that's not what we were under the impression until yesterday. So I'll let him address that. Other questions? Barb, I do have a couple. One, you said enlarge the equipment area. What do you mean by that? What looks like concrete. Okay. Right there, they want to enlarge it by 425 square feet. Okay. That would be for extra cabinets. And then in reference to the height to yard ratio and then movement or position of the new tower, I guess my concern would be the two buildings that are in close proximity. One of them definitely would have to be within tower range, and the other one I'm not sure. It depends on the location. That's more than 45 feet, though. It's closer to like 100. Well, right now it's about 106 feet, and then it's going to just be moved down a little bit closer to this. This is not a residential structure. That's a barn. But it is building. And do you know the distance to that other building as well from where the proposed tower is going to be? No, but it's only going to be moved a few feet this way. It's not a great distance. Okay. All right. Very good. Interested to see what Mr. Wahlberg's got to say. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of Subcarrier Communications. I have several things I would like to say, but I would start with saying that staff, as always, does an excellent job reviewing these applications. I think Ms. Racker has asked a lot of relevant questions. We, after the submission of the application, carried on a conversation trying to work out several of the issues. Some of the issues that have been raised I'll be able to address. Some I won't, but I will defer to the guidance of the commission, tell you what we propose, and then what we're willing to do. As a threshold matter, no one wants this tower lighted, including ourselves. We would prefer to keep this under 200 feet. The threshold for FAA lighting is the height of the actual tower. Our proposal is for 195 feet with a four-foot lightning arrestor, which also counts towards your FAA requirement for a total of 199. As long as we're at 199 or below, there's no lighting required on the tower. We are not in favor of lighting on the tower. As you are aware from other applications from Ms. Racker's presentation, there's a desperate need for improvement of cell service on the north side. We actually currently, on the north side of Fayette County, not Lexington proper, we currently house two wireless carriers on the site, Verizon and AT&T. They are over capacity on their equipment now. They're maxed out on what they can do with what they have there. They would like to upgrade their equipment, but the additional weight will not be supported by this tower. This tower was constructed in the 60s. I actually just learned that this week. Obviously, it was not a cell phone tower when it was built in the 60s. We came into ownership of it in the mid-90s, have been using it as a cell tower since that time. Taking to heart the zoning ordinance's preference for co-location, and we thought replacement of an existing tower was preferable to a brand-new construction where we kept this one online and did something else. So we're talking about a 25% increase in height for about a 650% return on what we can do. The facility we have proposed would hold four carriers or two existing. We would have one additional that is already committed in Sprint. We believe that T-Mobile will also want to locate as well, simply because there's not really any other opportunity to locate on other towers on the north side. We would also provide equipment for enhanced 911. I've received a request from the Department of Homeland Security to locate certain equipment on the site, and this one was a head-scratcher to me. We've also received a request to locate equipment for the Coast Guard, which apparently has something to do with their radio communications through the VHF channel. So that's the equipment that we're proposing. I do have several items I do want to place in the record, and I prepared handouts for you as well based on the monopole versus Lattice Tower issue, which I think will be the focus of the remainder of my remarks. We did post a sign as required under the ordinance on the site. I brought an affidavit for the record evidencing the same. And I have brought original copies of two affidavits that I'll place in the record and one demonstrative photographic exhibit, but I have brought copies for all of you as well. So I will pass that out and put that in the record. Thank you. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent guy, but I'm not a structural engineer. I did not go to school for that. Ms. Rackers, to her credit, identified this issue very early. Why were we proposing a lattice tower instead of a monopole? And so I contacted our client, and my client, and I'm quoting here, said, well, the tower won't support the equipment that we need. I construed that to mean structural support, and that's the answer I gave to Ms. Rackers. As it turns out, that's not entirely accurate. It's not a structural issue so much as it is an equipment-facing issue. Each tower, each cell tower that you approve that's located anywhere in the United States is actually individually engineered. And there are certain reasons for that. There are requirements. Cell phone tower regulation, as an aside, is actually a very interesting area of the law where local, state, and federal law kind of combine. And it's not oil and water, but they don't blend perfectly. perfectly. There are different requirements and things get a little interesting. But each tower under federal regulation is required to be engineered to withstand certain things, most importantly so they don't fall on anything. You have to consider your antenna load. That's the weight of the equipment that's actually going to be placed on the tower, but also the ice load and then the wind load. So towers are typically engineered to withstand a certain miles per hour of wind, but you also have to account for wind when the tower might be coated in ice. So each tower is specifically engineered for its purpose. We submitted this proposal for a lattice tower because we know that we can support all of the equipment we need at under 200 feet on the lattice tower. Could we do that on a monopole? The answer is, I'm not sure. We haven't engineered a monopole. Engineering a separate tower obviously is an additional expense. But I have provided affidavits from both an engineer registered within Kentucky and the owner of Subcarrier Communications that address our reasoning for wanting to do the lattice tower. We do believe that there is a safety issue as we add carriers, as we add equipment to this tower. We anticipate that once the tower is constructed, we'll actually house four different antennas. We'd ultimately like to get that to seven. monopoles are only provided with steel pegs for climbing they don't have a ladder a lattice lattice tower provides you with the opportunity to put a ladder on it but something that i found very interesting and perhaps i will be the only one but i wanted to understand what the difference really was between lattice and a monopole and i pulled this uh it's the top page of what i just handed out to you this is actually from a report that has nothing to do with anything that i've done. This was on the Kentucky Bridges project in Louisville. As some of you are aware, they were reconstructing the bridge for I-65. There was a somewhat substantial debate over whether they should install tollbooths or do it through a series of closed-circuit television cameras. And they've elected to pursue that closed-circuit television camera system. That requires the installation of several different towers to put, basically, their cameras that read license plates. There are four of them. The area along the riverfront in Louisville is considered a historic area on both sides of the river. And so as part of the Kentucky Bridges project, they were concerned about the impact of towers on the historic overlay or historic viewshed of downtown Louisville. And both the Indiana and Kentucky State Historic Preservation Offices ultimately preferred a lattice tower to a monopole, despite initially preferring monopoles. Why? Well, the pictures actually do it more justice than I ever could. While it is true that generally, particularly at the bottom, a monopole is narrower, a lattice tower allows more light through, and it actually kind of starts to fade out more quickly as you get removed from the structure. The best example that somebody explained to me was it is like if you hold up your hand. You can't see through this at all. Now, this is wider, but the light actually passes through. So as you get some distance away from the tower, it actually blends more into the back. Now, I'm not foolish. I know that no neighborhood wants a cell tower. But this existing tower has been there for more than 50 years. It's not in any structural peril. It's certainly safe, but it doesn't look good. It's a guide wire tower. It's a very thin middle, but it's actually held to the ground with wires. It takes up a big area. This is a much more slim design. If it is the commission's preference that we go for a monopole, we don't object to that. Monopoles are more expensive. They actually cost more. There's much more engineering on the front end because of structural concerns. However, we're not necessarily opposed to that. Our concern is until it's engineered, we're not entirely sure whether it will be able to house our equipment at the under 200 feet height. and my client instructed me that we would seek permission for a monopole of up to 215 feet. Again, we don't prefer that because if we go over 200, we would have to light it. We not only don't prefer it because the neighbors don't like it, we prefer it because lights are somewhat expensive to put on these towers, both to install the equipment and maintain. So that kind of informs where we were and how we got to where we are. We think this is a very good proposal. well, we think it embraces what Article 25 advises us to do. Royal Fayette County has very important view sheds. We'd like to protect those. This is an area with a tower. We're locating in virtually the same space. But because we're making these edits to the site, we also have to come into compliance with Article 25, which, by the way, we don't object to. This is a tower that's been on site for 50 years, and believe me, there were no tower requirements in the ordinance 50 years ago. Now there are screening requirements. More than happy to comply with those screening requirements. In short, we think that this will eliminate the need for many other towers in the area. It is a larger tower, but a relatively small increase in height for a dramatic increase in service. I do know there is opposition here, so I would like to reserve both my time and yours to respond to anything that are raised. But we would request approval. Frankly, we would request approval of the lattice tower. If the monopole is important to the commission, we will work to that goal. But we would request approval to build it up to 215 feet, simply to be certain that the equipment can be accommodated. I'd entertain any questions at this time. Other than that, I'll reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley, a question? Yeah, you have two carriers on there now. How many secondary carriers are on there now? Zero. No secondaries? It's just AT&T and Verizon have equipment on that right now. And you answered the question. You were saying 215 feet on the monopole. That is our request, yes. And I think I heard you also say that one of the considerations is simply the cost of the monopole versus lattice, but you're also going to have about a 650% return? That's correct. A return on existence. No, it's not necessarily a monetary figure. Rents and leases are a little bit apart from. I'm just saying right now we have two antennas and we'll get to seven. That's 350%. Whether that comes out for $1 for $1, I actually can't speak to that. I'm not privy to their lease information. Presumably it will increase the lease. Again, we don't necessarily object to the increased expense of the monopole. It's really all of these towers, even guidewire towers, all have expenses in different places. You pay more for the materials on the monopole. That's the point that I was trying to make. Lattice towers are actually a little bit more difficult to engineer because they have different connections. It's not just one solid steer structure. So it's just where you want to allocate your money. It's not a cost issue that we're requesting the lattice tower. Monopoles objectively cost more, but that's not the reason for that request. Okay. And would you be aware that typically across the state the average carriers on a pole is 2.7? I would say that's probably accurate, yes. Okay. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, so why do you get to 2.15 if you go to a monopole? As best as I understand it, and again, I'm not offering expert testimony on this point, is that you have the antenna arrays at the top, the little circular thing. I think they're colloquially known as bird's nests. They circle the top. You have to put them at a certain height to get your service. You can't put them at the bottom because the signal would not go very far. I think it starts at 165 feet. On a monopole, you have a fairly tight circle versus on a triangular lattice tower that we're talking about, because you have three separate mounting faces for equipment. So the monopole at the top, they're both pretty narrow at the top, but as you get down, they expand, so we can actually mount additional antennas at the 165 and 175 level versus the smaller at the top, whereas at the monopole, you're pretty much uniform all the way down because it's a one solid structure. That's my layman's understanding of why that is. And in full disclosure, the client said, we haven't engineered that tower. Is it possible that it would come in under 200? Absolutely, and that would be our preference as well. We don't want to go buy the lighting equipment. But our concern would be, and based on his experience, he has 12 towers within Kentucky, but hundreds nationwide. His experience is the more equipment you put on it, the more facing room that you need for that equipment. He would like the flexibility if we have to go to the monopole to get all the equipment on there that's possible. It's good for him in terms of rents, but it's good for the community in terms of lesser need for towers in the area. Okay. Mr. Berkeley? I don't know how long the staff report has been available. I got it late Tuesday. Okay. But it seems to me that we do not have enough information here to really make a determination. if you all have not engineered a monopole, which is what the staff has requested that you do. We only got that request on Tuesday. What I might suggest is that we just continue this until we can get that information. Before we get that far away, I think we may have others who want to speak as well. So let's go through that process. I think we'll move on and reserve questions and rebuttals for later. Others that would like to speak on this? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing a number of property owners around this, two property owners. Chaz Hyde is passing out our packet of information and some draft findings. But if we could, could we go back to Ms. Racker's photographic exhibit? Because it illustrates why we're here today. Yes, thank you very much. That's the one. Could you orient it the other way, the same way it was? There, there we go. And pull it. There we go. Again, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Jim and Susan Thornberry and Joe and Brenda Everman. Mr. and Mrs. Thornberry had to be out of town today, which they apologized for. It's very important to them. Brenda Everman is with me in the back row back here. Their son, Brendan, is with us today. Joe Everman is recovering from surgery at home, as was Mr. Ware's father, who wanted to be here as well. Mr. Ware was the man who addressed you earlier. So unfortunately, we have some surgical casualties here today who could not appear and speak for you. But this is important to us, and this illustrates it more than any way. This is the current tower right here, the one-acre tract. I think, what did they say, it's 160 or 165 feet, 160 feet tall. This right here is the Thornberry's barn. You can obviously see how close that is. This at the bottom right here is the Everman's farm, and I was just talking to them. They have a workplace there. They're in the barn all the time. And you can see that the one thing that pops out on this farm, and there's a home around here that Mr., either this or this, we can't quite make out what these white spots are that Mr. Thornsberry's father lives on the property here. So the first thing that pops out is the height-to-yard ratio. As I think Ms. Rackers pointed out, this doesn't meet the one-to-one height-to-yard ratio that would be required if this were built anew. Because as Ms. Everman said to me very excitedly when we first started this, we're the ones, the Thornberrys and the Evermans, we're the ones this tower is going to fall on. because it's within that distance now and making it taller just ups the ante on this, whether it's 30 feet or 40 feet more coming on their property. So that's the number one reason they're very concerned about this. I do have a little PowerPoint presentation if you could start that up. You've got the slides in front of you. We've given that out to you too. the, and I think I can advance it by this thing right now. Okay, good. Chris Glendon and my law partner and I put this together for you. This is the existing structure on the property. It's about 160 feet tall. It's on 1.4 acres. It's on a non-conforming lot. Obviously, it doesn't meet the 40-acre lot size requirement. It was constructed prior to 1990. We know now it's 50 years old, 1960. It's deeded. There's three existing structures with related equipment around the base of the power. You can see right now this is a guide-type tower. The two towers they're talking about, neither of them are guide. One is a steel monopole tower, which, if there has to be something there, which we hope won't, would be our preferred type of tower. The other is the lattice tower, which is a much wider tower on the property. Going to the next slide, there's a couple things that we think were not provided on the grounds that this is an existing facility. But I want to point out to you, this tower that's there now is going to be totally removed. It's going to be demolished. And as was mentioned in the presentation, the new tower is going to be on a slightly different location on the same lot. So the new tower is being totally removed. This is from our Section 2511 of the zoning ordinance. And it says that these are permitted, shall be subject to these regulations in the event the cellular tower is to be removed. So if we're removing the cell tower, which we are here, and replacing it with a totally new one, it's subject to the application requirements that are provided in this article. It goes on that if you're increasing the height and that sort of thing, you are too. The application didn't include that because it's now subject to the regulations of the ordinance. And rather than comply all those, they've stated that because it's an existing facility, it isn't necessary. Well, it's existing now, but it's going to be torn down. It's not going to be there. It's going to be a totally new one. The next one is the co-location efforts. As you all know, when you're siting a new tower, the carrier has to prove that they have first tried to co-locate on other towers in the area. In other words, they have to come and say, well, there are all these towers around there. If it's Sprint or whoever wants to come in, they can say, well, we have to have attempted to determine if we can co-locate on other towers before we come to a new location. They haven't demonstrated that, and they haven't demonstrated it because they say that this is an existing site, and they don't need to demonstrate it because it's an existing site. Similarly on there, they have to do a radio frequency analysis to show that as well, and we don't see any radio frequency analysis in the application that has been submitted to you. So again, we think they failed to comply with the application requirement because they haven't demonstrated to you whether they've tried to co-locate, They haven't done the radio frequency analysis of this as well. There are other towers around here. This is ours right here. You can see that in this vicinity there are a number of other towers, and we don't see any demonstration there as to why Sprint or T-Mobile couldn't locate on one of those instead of these structures. and I understand now today it's not just adding Sprint and T-Mobile. It's additional radio carriers over and above the two. They're going from three to six to seven. You have to submit a uniform application, as they refer to in the ordinance and in the statute, and you're supposed to show in there a search area within which the tower is located and do the radio frequency requirements once again. Again, they failed to do that. They don't have the radio frequency map, and they're asking for a waiver of this, of the requirement to do that, because it's an existing facility. And again, well, yeah, it's existing. It's there right now, but it's not going to be existing after this new tower is up. It's going to be a brand-new tower for not using this existing facility, and we don't think they can evade it. Now another set of standards come up because this is an agricultural zone. You have to meet special requirements because you're in an agricultural zone. It first says when there's no adequate alternative site, you can consider a site in a residential or an agricultural zone. So they first need to prove that they've tried to get sites that are not in the agriculture or residential zones. We don't see any of that in the record as well. Second thing is very important to us, for a while to demonstrate, one-to-one height-to-yard ratio shall be required. Reduction in the height-to-yard ratio may be permitted if no other location for the tower can be found. And I might add, though, you need to take into account the safety and distance of the other properties to this as well. That's one of the criteria for granting a waiver of it, but they don't meet that. Again, we say they fail to meet it. The residential and agricultural zones are the least preferred for cell tower sites. They've not done their homework with the radio frequency mapping. we don't meet the one-to-one height-to-yard ratio and the lot itself is non-conformal it's a one acre we didn't create that they didn't create that but it means that they cannot possibly meet the one-to-one height-to-yard ratio on this property can't be met all they can do is ask you for a waiver of that and we got barns and houses and property real close to that I want to flip down here to a picture there. That's the entrance into Fayette County. And we're going by what we see on the sign there, which says begin. This is when you're entering, you're coming in from Winchester into Fayette County. The sign right there says in Fayette County begin Kentucky Scenic Byway on there. And that's just down from Haley Pike. So our client took that picture, and we... I'm going backwards here. The scenic byway is important because, as this slide, this is Article 25.4-D, that when you're in the scenic byway, basically the rule is you do not want to locate any tower within the view shed of a scenic byway. I said if it is approved, any wireless communication facility along a state or federally designated scenic byway or within a scenic view corridor shall be located on an existing tower structure or utility pole or shall be designed as an alternative tower, sometimes called a stealth tower, described in Article 25.3. And importantly, the base of the tower and any support equipment shall be located either 300 feet from the right-of-way or beyond the viewshed of the designated scenic byway, whichever is greater. And I'll repeat that because that's important. The equipment at the base of the tower and the base of the tower cannot be visible from the scenic byway. And there's no waiver provision on that requirement. now those are just examples of alternative towers none of those are what they appear to be they're all just cell towers we're not advocating any of those we are, at least according to the sign erected by the transportation cabinet we're a Kentucky Scenic Byway and you can't be within the viewshed and the federal regulations define viewshed as everything that's within the line of sight now this is the line of sight from winchester road you can see the base equipment down there visible from winchester road miss everman is here and she can tell you whether it's visible from winchester road mr ware before he left told me it was visible from winchester road um touch up with here That's the view from Winchester Road, Haley Road, with the equipment at the base there. Haley is not a scenic highway. Winchester is. But the base and the equipment is clearly visible. And again, that's not, you know, it's probably okay when they did it in 1960, but it's not allowed now under the ordinance. So we feel it ought to be disapproved. We've listed some reasons there because it's subject to Article 25. It's the existing tower is being removed and has to be treated as a new tower. And they haven't met the requirements that a new tower would have to meet and demonstrate to you. they haven't shown that they've tried to co-locate they haven't done the required radio frequency analysis and mapping they cannot meet the one-to-one height to yard ratio here it's within the view shed of the scenic byway and we don't have the landscape buffering now they have said they will do that but it still fails to meet your approval requirements obviously we want this disapproved and we don't think it meets the requirements that you all have for for approving it we think it just flat ought to be turned down i know i may only get one chance to speak and i have to discuss the fact about if you do want to approve it which we hope you don't It is critical to us that this not be lighted. If you can envision a 200-foot tower with whatever the light is on top, whether it's a red flashing light or a other type of light, it's very bright. If they're going to be visible to an airplane two miles away, you can imagine they're going to be visible in a house or a barn 200 feet away, and it'll be quite a bit of an impact on the neighboring properties to do that. So we absolutely do not want to have any lighting on this. And we understand that the 200-foot height is the height limitation, above which the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, requires these to be lighted. So obviously we don't want this tower to be above 200 feet under any circumstances. The monopole versus the lattice tower issue, Our preference is a monopole. Now, we haven't seen the exhibits, the pictures up there. Some of them were a little better developed than others. We don't know all the science on doing it, but we do know that a monopole is a slimmer design, presents less of a profile. We have a difficulty with the staff. obviously recommend approval, but the engineer certification, the applicant has attached an engineer's certificate which says what the staff was asking that the lattice tower is preferred. Well, if I were building a bridge over the Kentucky River and I asked a civil engineer, which is the preferred style of bridge, one of them would say a suspension bridge, Another would say, well, I prefer trust bridges. That's what I learned in engineering school, and it's much stronger. Another one would say, I want an arch bridge. That's a classical bridge. It's very strong. It was built in Roman times. Those are still standing, and those will stand forever. So asking for a preference I don't think is the way to go. I think it ought to be monopole unless it's demonstrated that a monopole simply won't work. and that demonstration has not been made. I think it's a matter of how much it costs, what kind of steel they put in the monopole. I know there's different grades of steel which have different support numbers on it and I think that should be something which you know as well before you make a decision on this. I think you have enough information before you today to turn this down. I don't think you have enough information before you to approve it. Hopefully you don't want to approve it anyway. Hopefully you just want to turn it down. But I don't think you have enough information before you to approve it. We certainly wouldn't have enough information to tell you if you asked us totally, are you absolutely, totally sure you want a monopole versus a lattice tower? We couldn't tell you. We just heard this today. We are supposed to get notified before on what type of tower is coming up. We were told it was an 18-foot wide at the base lattice tower, and we have to prefer a steel monopole tower. So I'm going to have to tell you today, we prefer a steel monopole tower under 200 feet without lighting. But our first preference is no change at all because this property is just too small to do it. You can't possibly meet the one-to-one height yard ratio on this. And as I've showed you, my folks are very concerned about that because not only are there barns within that fall radius of this, they're standing within the fall radius. They've got somebody else living within the fall radius of this. So that's our case. I know Ms. Everman is here, and I think we'd like to address you briefly on this. And like I said, we have other people who, for various reasons, two in the hospital, two out of town, could not be here. But I am representing the people who are the closest to this and the most closely impacted by this proposed tower. Thank you very much. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? So I'm not inclined to do much of what they've requested as far as this goes, Dick. However, in the interest of trying to find a compromise, that in working with your clients, have you discussed that this might result in another tower on the other side of their farm? And is there a height, I mean, clearly below 200, I think, is a no-brainer because nobody involved wants the lights. So you've got 30-some-odd feet you're talking about in difference. is that something, if the applicant is willing to go with the monopole, is that going to be acceptable, or do you all feel like this needs to be disapproved? Because I think there's compelling arguments for both. My tendency at this point would be disapproval, but I'm also cognizant of there is a dearth of service in that area. So the result of a disapproval may be two more towers, not in your backyard but in your neighbor's backyard well that's part of the problem we have here since they we didn't see a radio frequency study we didn't see a co-location study of being able to say whether whether that is in fact the case whether they're going to be more towers if this isn't approved or not so really we don't have enough information to be able to say that. And without that, we have to ask you to disapprove this. Any other questions, Mr. Murphy, at this point? Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak, please come forward. And it sounds like Mr. Murphy's been representing you, so I'm going to ask anybody else would limit it to three minutes. Yes, this will be short. I'm Brenda Everman and I live on the farm that had the smaller of the two barns. We bought the property knowing the cell tower was there. Did a lot of research. I worked for the GTE, which was Verizon at the time, and so I did a lot of search about the health conditions. But I knew there were only two carriers, two and a half carriers that were there. It concerns me greatly that they're considering to go as high as seven carriers. in this area. That does present other health hazards. We are in the barnyard all the time. My husband mows that barnyard. He has an office in the barnyard. All of the neighbors have signed a petition. We didn't get this information until late last week, so I don't know that the planning committee has received all of ours. I know I mailed mine on Monday. But it is an eyesore. You can see it from Winchester Road. You can definitely see it from Haley Road. But not so much as a safety concern that I have with all of our livestock. Our cows, our horses, they're all wandering right around this whole area. So that would be what I would want you all to consider. And of course, we'd prefer to have it go away, but the least visible as possible. if we had anything to choose, we would choose something that certainly wouldn't have any lights on it. So thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, before we get to rebuttals, do the commission member have any questions for either parties? Yes, sir. I guess this might be for legal. Why don't we stick to, I'm going to say factual stuff, between the parties at this point, and we'll get to legal questions afterwards. Is that okay? I'm not knowing what your question is. Other questions for either party? Yes, sir. One quick question. I guess this would be the staff related to the alternate, the stealth. I missed that part of it. Did staff have any recommendations or thoughts about the stealth tower? That was a consideration, and one of the neighbors came in, and I said something to him about that, and he said the neighbors want a steel monopole. I said, okay, that's fine. And so I didn't bother to recommend that in the staff report, but a stealth tower would be very acceptable if they were willing to do that. Yes. Other questions? I've got a couple of questions for Mr. Wahlberg. I guess first and foremost, you did a fine job trying to explain, but I presume there's still no expert witness here. No, he can't get here from New Jersey, unfortunately, on two days. All right, then. The second thing that I just want to clarify at the moment is there was a question as far as the driveway needing to be paved according to Article 25. That is a condition that would, according to Article 25 today, that should be paved. I'll leave it at that, knowing that this was built some time ago and so forth. So at this point, if there's no other questions, I'll let you go with your rebuttal. Is that a question? Yes. I'm sorry. Maybe you don't know, but when these things fall, how do they fall? I mean, do they drop straight down or? Believe it or not, I actually do know the answer to this. They're designed to crumple down. If you think about crushing a can, when the structural fail, they're designed to go in so that it falls on themselves and not just topple. But is that the monopole or is that the other one? That's all towers are designed to, in a structural failure, to come down on itself, to minimize. because, I mean, so obviously we're talking about 200 feet. Most cell towers in Lexington are between 80 and 200 feet. Nobody likes the lights. There are cell towers that go up to 2,500, 3,000 feet. Those always have to be guide towers. You have to time that. It's the only way you can get that high. But everyone from the little on up to the big of all varieties are designed to go down on themselves. Have you seen examples of that? You can YouTube cell tower failures, which I have seen. I live within 250 feet of one. I just want to. Oh, sure. What about this? I got you. Let's move on, Mr. Cravens. Okay. Rebuttal? Sure. Obviously, I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Murphy said, but it's not that I don't understand where his clients are coming from. People are wild about cell towers. I understand it. People are wild about cell phones, though. People love to use their cell phones, and cell phones are a public utility. You have to be able to provide service. Federal law says you have to be able to provide service. When this body declines a cell tower application, our remedy is to go to federal court and say this is absolutely necessary. And on this part of town, in this area of Lexington, it is absolutely necessary. Now, I want to be clear about one other thing, and it's not that I'm saying it is a threat or because I'm cold-hearted. There will be a tower at this site. If this application is not approved, we don't intend to remove the tower. That would actually hurt service in the area, which we desperately can't afford to do. We're proposing to modernize the tower and provide a gigantic return on service for a marginal increase in size. I do understand the concerns about height-to-yard ratio. I'd be curious to know when those barns were constructed. I don't know the answer to that. That tower's been there for a very, very long time. Again, it's not that I don't understand the concern, but I believe building a modern tower on this site would be a benefit, not a detriment to those neighbors. Now, I understand the debate about monopole. I hope you all understand that it is certainly no disrespect to the commission that we didn't get an engineer here today. No disrespect to the staff. They have a lot to do as well. We didn't know that monopole was going to be a condition until Tuesday. My client is a New Jersey business. Unfortunately, getting everyone here is difficult on such short notice. If it is the Commission's will, we think you have enough to approve it here today. We think we have more than demonstrated the requirements that we need for your approval. However, if the Commission's will is to delay this two weeks to give us an opportunity to examine, to see exactly how tall a monopole would be, we are certainly willing to do that. not just because we want this approval, but because there is a desperate need for cell service in the northern part of the county. E911 has actually contacted our client, not vice versa. This isn't a push. This is a pull system. They need to enhance facilities in this area of town. People are very, very, very dependent on their cell phones. I'm a child of the technology generation. I don't have a home phone. If my cell phone doesn't work, I can't call 911. on. Many businesses, farms, small businesses that run out of homes rely on the cellular technology, not only for phone calls, but for data and access to the Internet. Cell phone technology, I understand no one loves the towers. Unfortunately, there just hasn't been a change in technology to obviate the need for the towers. The towers have to go somewhere. To the point that was raised in discussion with Mr. Murphy about whether there would be a tower nearby, there would be a tower nearby. If this application is turned down, maybe not from my client, but from someone, they will need to construct a tower to host greater technology to get better coverage. We have two carriers that are maxed out. We cannot add any more equipment. So that's where we are today. Again, if it is the Commission's will, we will investigate the monocle, but I think the information I provided you, particularly with regard to viewshed demonstrates that the lattice tower is really a fairly unoffensive way to accomplish this, and I can guarantee you today that that tower will not be taller than 200 feet. Happy to entertain any additional questions, but otherwise sincerely appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. This may have been explained, and I might have missed it. It's been pointed out that to obtain a cell tower location, you have to look at existing structures to see if they can accommodate additional antenna. The requests or your clients' plans for additional carriers on this structure, did they originate with requests from them for service on your tower? That's correct. Both Sprint and T-Mobile, as well as the Division of E-911 and the Coast Guard, have all independently reached out to our client requesting additional location. That's what actually led to the first exhibit in your application. There's a structural engineer report that says if you add anything else to this, we can't guarantee that it's structurally secure anymore. That's how this started. We consider this a co-location request. It is replacement of a tower, and if we were building in the same footprint, if we were to take down the other tower first and then build the other one to 160 feet guidewire tower again, we wouldn't have to have approval. We can replace the tower. We would have to come into compliance with Article 25 because we're replacing the tower, but it doesn't require an independent approval. It's only because we don't want to take down the existing tower, hurt service while we're rebuilding in the same place that we're in front of you today. And to clarify further, too, I think from what you have said is that your client intends to use this site regardless? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brewer? So we were looking for some sort of evidence about the demand. So you said that you know there's a huge amount of demand. There's going to be other towers. Do you have data backing that up? Or how do you state that definitively? I have my client's representation that that is true. I believe in Mr. Murphy's PowerPoint presentation, you saw the map of the area with the existing cellular facilities that are in the area. There's just a dearth of facilities in the area. You can only accommodate so much on an individual tower. There's simply not a lot of towers in that neighborhood. You have I-64 going through, so you have the traveling public that is placing demands on cell phone. Obviously not a real heavy concentration of residences there because it's in the rural area and we have minimum lot sizes. but my client's representation to me when I say why do we need this is we're over capacity on R2 and we're getting phone calls to add more that would be the evidence that I have to offer you of that okay any other questions well I've got another one for Barbara but it looks like she's poised to go make a statement so I'll just wait no go for it I was just going to make some statements, but if you want to hear if you have a question, that's fine. Well, my question is, from what I've heard, this should be disapproved. And I think that you took in your analysis a balance of needs of the community and came up with a compromise on this. So is that your sense that we're better off building, well, we'll go with a monopole, because the people whose backyard this is in want a monopole? But is it your sense that that is required because of the volume of traffic that we're not being able to serve now? Because otherwise, I mean, I don't know. You certainly can't get over the one-to-one ratio. That's never going to happen. Right, exactly. And that's the same way it was on Duke Road. That tower was 125 feet tall, and it was within, I mean, it's a tiny lot. It's a B1 lot, but it's a tiny lot. It didn't meet the height to yard ratio requirement. and when that was increased, when the tower was increased, I think it was like 180 feet or something like that, there was no way, no way, no way, and it was right across the street from a residential zone. I mean, we considered that justified because it was a replacement tower, and that's how we looked at this one. It's a replacement tower. I mean, it is new construction, obviously, because it's not adding on to the old tower, but it's a replacement tower, And the closest, Bill, if you would put that one with the towers up that Mr. Murphy had. The closest tower to this one is the one at the corner of, or where Cleveland Road and I-64 are. Here is, this is the one that we're talking about today. This is the one, the closest one, and that's at least a mile and a half away. And you have been told countless times in different hearings that coverage and capacity are the issues. You have to have them a certain distance apart. They can't be any farther than like two or three, maybe four miles apart at the most to be able to do coverage. If you want to co-locate on something, you have to have something to co-locate on. This one won't hold it, and there aren't any other towers except for the one that's a mile and a half away, and that one might be at capacity too. You have to have something that's tall enough and that's strong enough to hold the antennas. A water tower would do it probably. A silo would do it probably. But you can't just say, have you looked? I mean, you can, but you can't. It's a balanced thing. Have you looked for other places to co-locate? If there's nothing around to co-locate on, co-location can't be accommodated. I don't know what else to say to that. Let me interrupt you for a second before you finish up with what sounds like rebuttal. Sort of. Yeah, let me give Mr. Murphy a chance first, and then you can close with yours. Oh, okay. Okay. Sure. Thank you. Well, I think the discussion that has been taken illustrates what the point I was trying to make, and that is that under the requirement to file a uniform application for cell tower, you have to present certain information, and it has to be engineering studies. One is you have to do a radio frequency study, and another one you have to do a co-location study. These are engineering studies. It's not, well, we've got a lot of phone calls from Sprint, or they say they're filled up and they need a new place. That doesn't pass muster as an engineering study. We've heard discussion that these towers have to be two to three, four miles apart and all that. There's towers around here which are close. We don't have a demonstration that those towers can't take it. Maybe they can't. Maybe everything that's being said as an assumption is actually true. We don't know that. I don't think that's the case. And the purpose of that uniform application is to demonstrate that. we don't have that in here and that we don't have it because it was stated that this is a replacement tower and don't need to do that. Fact is, the ordinance says very clearly if a tower is being removed it's treated as a new application and you have to demonstrate all these items to you. That's the problem. That's the quandary you're finding yourselves in. It's because we don't have that data here. And my point is that, I mean, maybe out here my client asked me, well Has there been any demonstration? You can't put them on the two or three TV towers that are out there, Winchester Road as well. I don't know. Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But I'm not an engineer, and we don't have any engineering study to say that. But the point is that that uniform application hasn't been done. What was submitted to you is not sufficient to put this new and taller tower up there. and without that, I mean, we don't have the information. I know you don't have the information. I know we can make assumptions about this and that based on whether I have cell coverage or not or whatever, but it has to be based upon engineering principles, and it has not been. And I don't think it should be good enough to say one engineer prefers a lattice tower. I think if it's going to be something, if we want a monopole tower, which as far as we know we want because that was the information we had at the beginning, it should be a monopole tower, and it should be a monopole tower no matter what it costs unless it is demonstrated that a monopole tower simply won't work physically. And you don't have that certification from an engineer that nothing but a lattice tower will work and a monopole tower won't work. So, again, the studies that would answer all these questions for you haven't been done. That's what we need to make that decision, and it's not our responsibility to do that. It's the applicant's responsibility to do that. And I think short of those, you need to go ahead and turn this down. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Before you get up, Will's got a question because he may have to leave here. Yeah, I apologize for having to jump, but this was a question I was going to ask legal earlier. It seems to me that this Article 2511, as it pertains to this site, is it really an existing facility, or is it a new facility because the old facility is being taken down and actually moved? Well, I think the situation is a little bit unusual because it is an existing facility as it exists right now. And it is being used to provide cell service. however what you've heard today is that it is going to the replacement of that facility is going to be taking down that tower and moving it albeit a few feet the way this ordinance is written that could be based on the fact that that is considered a total replacement which kicks in some other things in this ordinance Now, like Barbara explained the way we dealt with it on Duke Road, it was the same sort of a situation, and that may explain why you don't have some of the information here that you would normally have. However, I'm having a problem trying to determine how you're going to evaluate, because as we know from our past experience with cell towers, coverage is mandated. And so if we're going to disapprove something, we better have some really good reasons to do that for coverage, you know, if it's going to lack coverage at the end of the day. And so whether or not there's enough information here, I don't know. But I think there would be an argument either way, and that's a little bit confusing, but certainly there is an existing facility that's going to be entirely removed. So there is an interpretation here that that means a new facility is going up, which kicks in to the things in this ordinance. So, you know, the commission is going to have to grapple with that, but I think there's room for both ways. But it does give me some pause that I can understand what happened because the fact that the facility is there and has been used as a cell tower. It's not like it was a tower that was there for something else, and all of a sudden now we're going to bank it a cell tower. but removing it entirely and installing something completely different and moving the location of it slightly may be enough to kick this ordinance in and treat it as a new construction. So, you know, I don't know what's the best way to deal with that, but I think we're going to have to. I often call it the grandfather clause or whatever, that do you lose that, you know, because of this, But I, unfortunately, am going to have to leave here in a few minutes and may not be able to vote. But for the reasons that you've mentioned here and what I was talking about earlier about the lack of the engineering for a monopole at this point, I still recommend that we would continue this at least. Barb, we'll finish with rebuttals. Okay, first to answer that, if you continue it, if you ask to continue it, the applicant has to agree to that because it's beyond the 60 days. This today is already beyond the 60 days, and they agreed to postpone it because of the agenda that we had at the end of January. So this is beyond the 60 days. They would have to agree to that. You can ask, surely, but it may not happen. Okay. And to answer your question, Ms. Plumlee, yes, the road does have to be paved. All the way back from Haley Road all the way back to the tower, yes. And as I said before, co-location has to have something strong enough to co-locate on, for the antennas to co-locate on. Health hazards cannot be used as testimony and taken into consideration. That's a federal law. The closest tower is at Cleveland Road and I-64, and it's a mile and a half away. They could check to see if it could co-locate on there, but I don't know that it would take care of the problem. This is a considered, in our opinion, it's considered a replacement tower, very similar to the Duke Road site, which is why we recommended approval of it with the information that we had and with regard to the height to yard ratio. The towers, as Jacob said, are designed to collapse into themselves. They don't fall over. That's just something that they engineer into the towers. They are designed to go. Even a steel monopole is designed to kind of fold in on itself somehow. I don't understand how it all works, but they don't just topple over. They do fold. And the last thing I'd like to say is that I looked at the scenic byways map that we have, and this part of Winchester Road is a scenic corridor. It's not designated as a state-designated scenic byway. Haley Road is also a scenic corridor, but it's not considered a state-designated scenic byway. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm confused. Questions or comments? Well, it'll be a little of both because I'm confused. Some of this sounds ministerial in the sense that we might win the battle but lose the war ultimately if this thing goes to court. But I was going to ask Aliyah because I heard two different things. One is it depends upon the interpretation as to whether or not this is a new facility or another. So my recommendation would be to follow my colleague, Mr. Berkley, over there and say to go for a continuance on this until we get some additional information. Okay. Others? Let me ask this. Any specific questions? Otherwise, we'll just go to comments and sell this part. Yes, sir? I guess a fair question is, are you all willing to continue it? I'm a lawyer, so I can't give you the short answer, but the short answer is yes. The long answer is we considered this a replacement facility, too. Staff did. We did. That's why. And we've met all of the requirements for a replacement facility. So if the question is, can a monopole be supported, I'm willing to continue to your next meeting so we can thoroughly vet that out. Again, I apologize for that, and it's through no fault of anybody here, but it's just simply impossible to engineer a tower in 48 hours. If it's about some of the other issues like the RF map and things like that, we're not going to have time to do that in a timely manner. So if the commission's will is investigate, thoroughly vet out and flesh out the monopole, I have no objection to that. Frankly, you all deserve that. My concern would be if the expectation is that we're going to treat this like a new application when staff and ourselves have treated it as a replacement, that's a taller order that I'm not confident I can accommodate. Mr. Owens, can I say something about the radio frequency analysis? We get those with most of our applications, but there is no way to interpret them. So even if we did have it, it wouldn't tell us anything. I mean, it shows different colors, and we have no way to prove because it doesn't have any kind of scale on it. It's just blobs of red, blue, and green or whatever. And I'm not saying that that's a good enough reason to not submit one, but it doesn't provide us. It wouldn't have provided you any information, probably. It wouldn't provide us any information because it doesn't have any, it's not relative, it's not shown relative to properties or to distances. It's just blobs of color. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brewer? My question is actually for Mr. Murphy when he gets done back there. I have a question. Okay. Does this body have the authority to actually determine whether or not, I mean, can we change, can we determine from Article 25 that this is a new replacement? I mean, is that within our purview to be able to make that kind of a decision? Well, I mean, I think that's, yes, I think it's within your purview. but I'm not going to tell you that it won't be challenged by someone who doesn't agree with whatever decision that you make on that issue. That's the case in a lot of situations. I feel certain that it might be. Okay. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Murphy? It seems to me a couple of things, and I'm not trying to tell your clients what to do with all this, but we've got a possibility of continuance that's in the applicant's hand. We've got the possibility of if he agrees to the continuance, which he doesn't have to, they could come back with plenty of experts that provide the information that you have cited as missing from this application. My view at this point is that your clients are probably better off compromising on something they think they can live with than rolling the dice and waiting to find out what the self folks come back with. So if that's what you were doing, if you haven't done that, I think it would be worthwhile to consult with them. I was just in the middle of that. If you can give me 30 seconds, I'll give you an answer. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, let me ask. Yes. Mr. Cravens? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. This doesn't bother me at all. I mean, I think it's a replacement tower, and like I stated, I live within 250 feet of a tower with all that stuff around the base of it and everything. And I don't even think about it until we come down here and have one of these hearings, and that's when I remember to look up there and see it. But, I mean, when I drive up my street, I see it, and then I turn left in my driveway. But I don't even look at it unless it blends into the scenery. And like Barbara said, you can get all these radio frequency things and all that, and that's just delaying these people. And so I think it's a replacement tower. I think I guess I would have some sympathy if they wanted a monopole instead of the other kind. But the other kind, I kind of agree with him that the other kind has smaller pieces of steel and things, and you can see through them. And so it's not just a great big black pole. It's, you know, a series of steel. So I can support going on with this. We're intermingling comments with questions right now. Let's see if we can't get finished with the questions. Mr. Murphy, do you have an answer with Mr. Brewer? Well, of course, we'd like to be voted down, but we understand the point you're making. And so we would be okay with a postponement on that. If we do, I'd ask for a one-month postponement because I've got one in the hospital seriously ill now. I've got one recovering from major surgery. at home who can't travel right now. I've got two out of town, and I'm going to need more. If everybody gets well and feeling fantastic in 10 days, I need maybe a little more than four days to get people together and make a decision. I don't think they're going to be well and feeling like it. So if you do postpone it, I'd just ask you to go to the first March meeting of it, if you would. My point about that was that decision is in the applicant's hands, not ours. So what I was trying to communicate, and maybe I didn't do it as well as I should have, is if the applicant says, no, we need to make a decision today, then I think there's been questions raised, and certainly the staff has come up with a recommendation that I think a lot of my colleagues here can live with. But I want to make sure that we do what we can to make sure that the folks that you're representing are going to be happy with the compromise that I think probably is going to come out of this. Our number one concern is less than 200 feet, no light. And from some of our folks, and I may not be representing, I'm representing the Thornburys and the Evermans to families. I'm not representing the association, not representing Mr. Ware, who was here before. But based on information they had gotten from the file, especially Mr. Thornberry, who unfortunately is out of town, he decided that a monopole is better, less intrusive than a lattice tower. Now, I can't tell you if he'd say that right now. See, in the picture, I can't tell you if he'd say that if their engineers came and said, well, we really think lattice tower is better, here's why, and all that sort of thing. I don't know. But he did do investigation into it and decided that he thought a monopole was a better situation than a lattice tower. As I said, the overall thing is less than 200 feet on it. Thank you. Okay, I think at this point we'll just close this part of the hearing as far as any testimony. Open it up for comments, questions, et cetera, et cetera, from anyone. I do have a couple of comments whenever I'll let anyone else go first. You going again? If you'll call on me. More than welcome to, Mr. Cravens. I'm just trying to resolve this. I mean, I guess we could make a motion stating, if we agreed to it, that no lights on it, 200 feet or whatever that is, a monopole. What's that do to you if we do that? The short answer is I can't tell you with certainty. The worst case scenario would be we would not be able to locate as much equipment on it. From a client perspective, that would hurt bottom line. And from a planning commission perspective, I would have concern that there would be an additional request that would come in for a tower. I can't tell you that with certainty. Do you want that or do you want continuance? If it's the commission's will for us to thoroughly investigate monopole, I'm happy to do that for you. We just simply have not had enough notice to do that. Thank you, sir. Other comments? Well, I was going to say, to cut to the chase, I would move that we have a continuance on this particular discussion for at least one month. That's not our choice. I'm sorry. I mean, he's agreed to it. And I did agree to it two weeks, to your next meeting, and I'm happy to do that. I understand Mr. Murphy's concern, and I have some sympathy for that situation, But we've actually already voluntarily delayed this once at the request of staff, and not to be crass, but time is money, and construction season is coming, and my client needs some resolution. So I would agree to it. That would be my request would be for two weeks. All right. Thank you, sir. Then I would amend my motion. Now, I'm assuming when I say this that what you are saying to us is you're not going to go back and talk about radio frequencies and stuff like that. What you're saying primarily is on that poll issue. Let me address that. Since we are continuing with this and we did close this part of the hearing, we're going to open it back up for specifics, okay? Specifics only. And the opposition can address those specifics and specifics only in that situation. Legal? Does that sound reasonable? I think that's appropriate because it seems to me the question you're asking is, in terms, I mean, right now you're at an impasse on we want it under 200 feet, we want a monopole well, my client says I can't do a monopole under 200 feet. I don't know, I don't even come close to pretending to be an engineer, nor do I want to, so I don't know any of the reasoning behind that, so it seems to me that's part of the question that would help make the decision here, so I think it's fair to limit it to that, just Just so we can avoid a potential legal future quagmire here, I think that if he's saying he's agreeable to a two-week extension, we may want to get that in some form of writing from him because there's some written provisions. And you all would just be approving that continuance because I don't think you all can enforce that on the applicant at this point, if that's fair. I'll be more than happy to provide whatever documentation necessary to legal satisfaction. Okay. Will that satisfy for now as far as possible continuance? Okay. So I think I heard a motion. I guess the motion is contingent upon the written. He has to do the writing first, I guess. Well, no, I mean, I think that you can. Upon written. Right. Okay. upon written notification that two weeks. And I'm not trying to be smart. I did swear that I would tell the truth. I do agree and will evidence ariding before I leave this chamber if that's what Tracy needs from me. I would just simply amend my motion to say upon acceptance from the applicant regarding the time frame of being two weeks, and that's agreeable with him, that we have a continuance on this discussion. Okay. Okay, well, I think we need to hear from the other side on the two weeks. Two weeks. Before we do that. I'm also ready to go with another alternative. Continuance. Well, I understand the situation in which the applicant may be in the driver's seat on whether he grants a continuance or not because of the 60-day rule. I was proposing the month because we do sincerely have medical issues as well as transportation issues. Now, I will tell you, too, and it's okay with me, but two weeks from now, I know you've got some heavy cases coming in. I'm not even sure you're going to get to this case. We've got the Charlesburg Road zone change coming up. I've got another one in addition to that. There's a few other ones coming up that are going to take some time. So that's okay with me. I can handle it, doing it. But you may not get to it, number one, and I was asking this because of my folks with particular medical conditions. I know he's probably in the driver's seat on that. I do want to emphasize, though, too, by my agreeing to postponement, I'm not abandoning my case that I think that they should have demonstrated the radio frequency and the co-location study on it because it's a new tower. Thank you, sir. I think my part, Ms. Richardson? Yes, I was, is there some reason that we could not, if we made a motion for approval and made it contingent upon the applicant checking or doing whatever they have to do in order to see if a cell tower under a monopole under 200 feet was possible. Otherwise, if it isn't and it's obvious that nobody wants lights, then the only way to increase the service there is to go with the lattice. So can we stipulate? Stay out of court. If that's a motion you would like to make, I would suggest we might want to take a recess to make sure that it's worded appropriately. It is a motion I would like to make. Okay. Hold on. Hold on. I think, let me go back to the fact that I think Mr. Wilson had a motion that he made, if I'm correct, for continuance. Is that correct? It hasn't died yet. Ms. Plumlee did second it. We didn't get a chance to discuss anything. So with that, let me, you know, comments. We do have a motion and it has been seconded. Discussion for the vote? I'd like to discuss my own motion. Okay. Which is fine, but the reason why I asked for the continuance is that I heard Mr. Murphy say that his client was definitive related to the poll, but he really didn't know whether or not he would be acceptable to the lattice type of thing. In other words, he doesn't know whether his client would want to go with the pole or the lattice. I understand from the applicant's perspective, they're willing to consider a lot of activities under that aegis. So that's the reason why I think the motion is in order. That's all. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I have a question just so I can figure out where I am and how I view Bill's motion. And it's for legal. Do we have the authority to impose a height limit on a tower on this site? Could we approve a monopole that could not exceed 200 feet in height? Because that's essentially what Carolyn is suggesting. I think you probably can. Whether or not that's going to be a viable option, I don't know. I mean, I can't answer that part. Viable to make it work the way that it needs to work to provide the coverage. If we did that and the client or the applicant couldn't provide service under those conditions, he would have to come back to us, would he not, with a different request? I think no. I think there's a possibility, and I'm really out there supposing right now, But there's a possibility if we impose that condition and they go back and they say that doing a monopole, and I don't know that this would happen. Again, I think it's an engineering question. But, you know, we can't do the monopole at the height that you've restricted us to and provide the coverage that's mandated. then they could, I believe, go directly to court and say, we can't meet the coverage requirements mandated in the federal act because of the restriction they imposed on us, and we're in fact litigating right now whether or not a decision that this body made about restricting or denying, you know, is effectively denying providing coverage. So this is a really muddy area. So I don't think that they have to come back. They could, but I don't think they have to. I don't think they'd have to come back and say, we've investigated this and we can't meet your restriction and provide coverage. I think they would have an option to do that, but if they chose not to do that, I'm not sure, I don't think we have any authority to make them do that. So their alternative would be to go to court and get relief from our requirement. I mean, well, their alternative, I think, always, and again, I don't know exactly how we do this, and I'm sure the planning folks in the room are going, ah, but, you know, because we don't have this kind of situation. But I'm sure they would have an opportunity to come back to us and say, okay, we've investigated your restriction. We can't make this work. we want to modify it in some way, and we'd have to figure out, I'm assuming, if an applicant wanted to do that as opposed to going to court, if we could do that. But they also, I think, would have the other option available. And which one they pick would not be up to us, it would be up to them. Yes, I understand. So, you know, I can't answer what would happen one way or the other there. I understand. I didn't expect you to answer that. I was just questioning whether or not we could impose a height restriction. And it seems that we can, then the ball's in the applicant's court. That's how he wants to address that, if that height restriction prevents him from meeting his coverage demands. True. And I don't want to get the wagon too far down the road. However, if you were an applicant and you were going to make that argument in court, I think you'd have to have something else to back up why you couldn't meet that requirement. I understand. Thank you, Tracy. Comment on my end, and then I guess we'll probably get to a vote. I came in here with the thoughts, yes, we do have an existing tower. They're wanting to increase the height of it. We're dealing with nonconforming issues. We're not supposed to make those nonconforming issues more nonconforming. So I had several questions, and I can live with most of those. the one thing that I did not hear any testimony on Mr. Wahlberg was saying that his applicant believes that a 215 foot tower or a lattice type tower is needed to support it. He's not sure. We've heard several requests over the years for monopole towers. We've talked about them here today. all of them came in at under 200 feet i think is 195 feet with lightning arresters making them 199 feet still not having to be lighted and each one of them had requests for co-location which these folks are wanting to do each one of them was supporting the fact that enhanced 911 services was also needed, which is happening here. I just simply have not heard where the fact of a lattice tower is really needed, as opposed to a monotower. I think that's the preferred method to go. I think I heard from the neighbors that they would prefer it as opposed to something else. And the applicant is saying that they could go that, but they're uncertain if they would need the additional height. I'm game to stay with something under 200 feet at this point in time as far as a monopole. But those are my thoughts. We do have a motion on the table. Are there any other motion and a second? This is for continuance. And Mr. Wilson, that was for how long? That would be for two weeks. And the intent of pushing this down the road? In my mind's eye, the only reason I'd even suggest a type of continuance is that it seems to me that a cell tower is going to go in. We could win the war by saying no, but ultimately I think we're going to lose the battle on these cell towers because I think it's ministerial. That's just the personal part. The point is that there seems to be some lack of knowledge on the part of maybe the defendant in this case, and he's not sure whether his client would accept a lattice tower versus a pole. He came in with the understanding that it would be a pole tower. But if he had heard or he hears good reasons as to why it should be lattice, it might change his mind. On the other hand, the applicant is saying we're willing to do a pole tower. We will do whatever could be done, but we don't have enough information now to demonstrate engineering-wise that that's the best way to go either. So I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the two people sitting here saying they're not sure about that pole versus lattice, not whether or not it's going to go in or whether it's not going to go in. I think that's kind of both. Yeah, I would agree. That's the only thing. I think we've got a situation where I think anybody who's going to be involved in this decision believes there's going to be a tower there of some sort. The applicant has said his client doesn't want lights. The neighbors clearly don't want lights. So I don't think there's anybody that's pushing for something that eclipses 200 feet, because that then kicks in the requirement from the FAA. So, again, I'm willing to continue this if you all want, but it seems to me we're kicking something down the road two weeks where it's going to be busy, and we're going to end up with the same time. I think at the end of the day, in my opinion, we're going to end up with a compromise that says monopole below 200 feet, because I think that's the only way that we get to something that's going to be a viable passage. I don't think that we're going to get to a denial vote on this one because I think in that situation it will either end up in a quarter or we're going to have another tower a half a mile away. But I'm not telling you to not have the vote, but I'm not sure that a continuance is the best thing if we can get the compromise vote today and make both parties a little bit happy. I'm willing to withdraw the motion completely. If you think that that's the best way to go, I'm just trying to figure a way to get out of this. So, Mr. Chairman, I just withdraw my motion and let the body make up a new one, if that's okay. Depending on what happens, we may come back to that. As far as the new motion? Do we need discussion with Ms. Tracy Jones legal? We're going to have a recess. I'd like to see if we could work out. Okay. Let me just call for a five-minute recess. Okay. We're resuming five minutes. What does she want us to do? No, we can take five anyway. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to get to it. Okay. We got it. We got it. Okay. Reconvene, call this back into order. Ms. Richardson, I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the new tower replacement construction request at 3347 Haley Road, based on the conditions 2 and 3 of the staff report and condition 1, stating that the tower be located on the site as shown on the layout and that the tower is to be a monopole, not exceeding 199 feet. and using the two staff recommendations that our conditions also should be added. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of cell tower antenna request, new tower replacement construction request, 3347 Haley Road, with three conditions, two and three remaining the same, and number one, if I'm correct to say, still located at the same site, being a monopole, not to exceed 199 feet? Correct. Okay. Any questions on the motion? If not, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. I believe that's all the items on the agenda today. We do have a work session. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, we have two things actually coming up next week. On Wednesday, February 17th, we have an APA audio conference in our conference room at 4 o'clock if you all want to come for an hour and a half of training. And then on Thursday the 18th, we're having the work session. That will be in the Phoenix Building on the third floor, the same place we had it last month. The agenda items include continued discussion of the economic development land in the expansion area. We will expect to have a presentation by Commerce Lexington on that with some information about how they recruit jobs and what kind of jobs are coming to Lexington and what their needs are for job development. We'll also be talking about the environmental ZODA. We gave you all drafts of that, I believe, at your meetings last week, and so I encourage you to look over those and be prepared to talk about those on Thursday the 18th at our work session. Thank you. Maybe I should ask any audience items, any other commission items? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you, folks. Meetings adjourned.