all right order 601 we good in the booth all right thank you um motion to approve the agenda i so move second all in favor aye any opposed all right x party communications has any member of the commission received any communication regarding tonight's agenda no no clerk swearing in okay anyone that plans to speak at tonight's meeting please stand and raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony or evidence you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge thank you all right this is a quasi judicial item so we have a party statement determination mr chair we do not have any individuals who have requested party status as you know from the many times i've read it party status would be given to somebody who is more directly or substantially impacted by the decision of the commission uh tonight as i said no one has requested that if there is anybody in the audience who has not requested it but wants to ask for that they may and if they do request it in our granted party status they would be given the opportunity to present for a longer period of time to ask questions of witnesses and to submit evidence and testimony in support of their position all right is there anyone in the audience that believes they're more greatly affected than anyone else all right let's move to agenda item 3.2 which is z to five dash zero zero zero zero zero one one special use permit for windsor pwsf mr chair good evening jerry brewington senior planner alachua county department of growth management i have been sworn a copy of my resume is on file and for the record uh this item was properly advertised and publication of that has been provided to the clerk we do have again this one quasi judicial item this evening this is a special use permit for a public uh personal wireless service facility uh located in the windsor rural cluster um and some slides to follow describing the extent and nature of that request the application is for a special use permit again for a personal wireless service facility pwsf you'll hear us abbreviate it this is a tier three application i'll explain those in a minute but there are four tiers of application that we have in the code this is a tier three tower it is a monopole of 199 feet in height and it is uh situated in a small enclosure an 80 by 80 compound that has the tower as well as associated ground facilities for the wireless facilities that are located on the tower and landscaping again it is located in windsor in the eastern part of the county um some specifics about pwsfs they're classified as one two three or four in our code and this is based on factors such as the height of the tower and the land use of the site requests that do not meet the criteria for tier one which is simply a building permit or tier two which is a change to development plan but for an existing tower require a special use permit this particular application is a tier three it is a new tower and therefore a special use permit is required a public hearing before the planning commission and the board some additional background the pwsf is a monopole design that it is a single pole it is not guide or lattice work tower there are not guy wires coming out it is a single pole going up you will see those in the photos um and 199 feet as with all pwsf applications we have retained a radio frequency consultant or rf consultant to conduct an independent technical evaluation of the tower and the existing coverage gap so if there's technical questions related to the tower tonight about coverage anything like that we do have our consultant on hand mr monzingo to provide any answers hopefully for any questions you may have and he's also going to make a brief presentation as part of the staff report the location of the property is east of noonan's lake it's in the windsor rural cluster rural clusters are groupings of somewhat more dense population within the rural part of the county this is the windsor rural cluster located just east of noonan's lake and this parcel that you see which is the larger what we would call a parent parcel it's not actually going to take up that whole thing but actually a very small piece of it is located in the rural cluster a closer view showing an aerial image of the site and there is an arrow indicating a portion of the site where approximately this tower will be located the site has a rural cluster land use designation as you can see from our future land use map and an agricultural zoning district the r1c portion is actually partly in partly out of the rural cluster but those are all part of the windsor rural cluster a site plan mr chair that shows in greater detail what actually is a very typical site plan for a tower the uh driveway that you can see on the right hand side the green area is a landscaped buffer that is required by code around all base the base of all tower sites um the bluish light blue areas are the lease areas for the um uh primary holder right now which is t-mobile but there are room for others on the property there are co-locations on the tower at a future point i believe up to four uh the red is the tower itself which is in the center of the compound so that's the basic parameters of the actual tower site itself it's off of southeast eighth avenue which is a gravel road a public right-of-way 33 feet in width that is providing the access to get to the actual site and you can see that again on the site plan which is on the southern portion of the larger parcel that i showed you previously this is a depiction of the actual tower itself it is a monopole i'm sure you're all very familiar with it the uh facility it consists of a variety of parts the tower the fence the antenna and a lightning rod the tower is the gray part in the middle it is a monopole it is a metal pole approximately 194 195 feet in height then associated with that are there at the bottom you can see the green these are the equipment compounds the enclosures for the equipment that service the wireless facilities on the tower the red area at the top are the co-locations for the various antennae there are again shown depicted four on this these are co-locations that can occur on the property or on the tower i should say and then at the very top going up to 199 feet is a lightning rod again to point out this is not going to be a lit tower it falls underneath as lower than the parameters that will require lighting or the beacon light for a tower so this is not a lit pwsf facility this is a map showing various locations of pwsf facilities in the area they are highlighted in red you can see there are a number of them nine i believe to be specific but as you can see and again our consultant will provide a little more detail on this but you can see this tower site in the middle of that two mile radius there is no tower there there is a coverage gap that is located where the tower will be to help cover that coverage gap for communications i'm going to take a break uh mr monzingo monzingo is going to come up and provide you with a little actual detail about the review that he undertook as far as the rf and the justification for a facility at this location i'm chris monzingo registered professional engineer in the state of florida uh this is probably my maybe my third or fourth one of these i've done for alachua county i don't know if you overheard the conversations i do the same type of work for st john's county columbia county palm beach county several counties around the state of florida along with our other work that we do at omnicom consulting group which is revolves around wireless rf design public safety is our our biggest forte so as you saw from the previous map there are no towers within two miles of the proposed location why does two miles matter you know these towers can only propagate their signals so far so if there's need for coverage in that area you're going to have to have a tower eventually the whole point of the code is to limit the proliferation of towers but there's none in this area for them to use that's the first thing we do is we make sure that there are no other structures we use google earth tower databases fcc to try to find if there are any existing towers or tall structures in cities building tops and such obviously not out there so the two closest towers to this particular location t-mobile being the proposed anchor tenant are already currently using those two sites so it's not like they could move on to one of those other towers and cover the area because they're already on all the towers that are in the area that are existing t-mobile list this is basically my picture of the same thing that they provided in their application it's a two mile circle around the tower and there are no towers within that i didn't put all the other towers that are just outside the two mile area but there were no towers within two miles or tall structures within two miles of the proposed location so we we gather when the applicants submit their application there's a list of technical parameters that are requested alachua county is pretty good about we get it the first time because it's requested up front so that i can do my own independent rf propagation study we have in-house propagation software that we use essentially a sanity check i mean technically i could probably look at their map and kind of i've been doing it long enough to say hey this is doesn't look right but we use the software we put their basically their system into our software we run the coverage to make sure that you know what we're getting out of our software closely matches what the t-mobile rf engineer came up with it's not going to be exact it never will be but got to be close and we did that um so on the on the left ocg coverage map that's our coverage software without the tower on the right is what t-mobile submitted as their coverage without the tower again similar but not exact but there's definitely a gap in coverage in the very middle of those towers where they're trying to put this tower between the nine jk zero four four five b and the nine jk one two five five a essentially this tower is going right in the middle of the existing towers and then that's where the proposed tower turned on again our coverage on the left there's on the right fills in the gap in between the area where they're having coverage issues after our review we would recommend so we only review the basically the rf and technical part all the other requirements of your code is on your staff as far as did they make setbacks the zoning the land things like that so based on the rf part of it we would recommend that the application is approved so photo simulations i think he's going to come back up and finish that any questions for me thank you as part of our pwsf code mr chair we require photo simulations these are for visual impact which is a key component of our pwsf ordinance we want to assess the impact of the facility on surrounding areas uh having maintaining compatibility especially in an area like this is important the applicant provided well and above we actually only provide or require four they have provided eight and so i will go over those with you very quickly um four of them are from along county road 234 one's from the north two are from the south and one they actually took on the same parcel just so you get an idea of how it'll look close up you can see each of the photos sims is outlined in this magenta-ish color there so i can go by each one of these very quickly there's also the half mile radius that has been marked out um the first one number or letter a is taken almost directly due north from it you can see off to the left the close-up indicator you'll notice a common theme with many of these this is a very heavily vegetated area on from most matter fact about the only place that isn't heavily vegetated is the actual site itself so a lot of these you're going to see are very or almost entirely obscured with vegetation which is a good thing because again uh visual impacts are a key component of our pwsf ordinance so this is from a from the north uh b you can see outside the half mile radius it is from the northeast and again looking at that one uh looking uh southwest you can see it is not visible from the road and again very similar theme there is a b2 which is a little farther down south but still uh on the uh northeast quadrant and this one you can actually see if you look in the photo sim on the right you will see a red circle uh in the middle of it very hard to see but it is there is the very top uh antenna on the tower so from that part you will be able to visually see it again i would point out that these are not lit so there won't be a light at night but it will be again visible from the this portion at the very top uh given future vegetative growth i don't know how long that's going to remain the case but for now it is looking from the southeast again number c letter c i should say and you can again on the upper right hand corner there is a very small window where you can see the uppermost portion of the tower facility continuing on d is from the southwest outside also the two uh excuse me the half mile radius that one is totally obscured that is from i believe the county road e is from due south across very heavy vegetation and again you can see that's planted pine in various vegetation from that side but again um not visible and lastly from the southwest looking northeast outside again the half mile radius it is not visible this is the last one and this is actually from the actual project site on the north side of the project site so if you were actually standing on the property and looking at it to the southwest you would see the tower itself but this gives you a very good indication of the tower and the way it would look on the project site again 199 feet no lighting at the top staff is recommending approval of this there are in your staff report mr chair a number of criteria policies and goals objectives that support the proposed application i won't go through them all in detail but i want to point out a couple of them that are very germane to this one specifically objective 5.5 of the future land use element does require that designing and locating pwsf facilities along among other institutional use and this is considered an institutional use in our plan must be done to eliminate or minimize adverse visual impacts we feel given the photo sims that this has been done very successfully the tower is barely visible except very close up on a direct line of sight but we would imagine that the majority of people would not even know it was there looking at basically traveling the county road it would be difficult or impossible to see the tower also i'd like to point out policy 5.8.1 this specifically is addressing pwsf facilities and their deployment of these facilities throughout the county this is considered a need of the county a utility if you will that is up there with all other utilities that are provided in the county but wireless facilities are considered important and it speaks to the need to balance the need for those facilities with impacts uh adverse visual impacts packs specifically to the surrounding area again we feel this has been very successfully done by the placement of the tower in such a way that it's going to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area we do have criteria in our unified land development code for uh special use permits and those you can see in detail in the code there are no impacts to facilities roadway facilities or other impacts to infrastructure in the county um and it is in every respect consistent with the comp plan and the unified land development code we have proposed a number of conditions i believe the applicant has agreed to all of these these are very standard it does permit the use of the pwsf facility on the site is located um there is a condition that if any degradation occurs to south east 8th avenue that those be brought back to pre-construction conditions recognizing that the road may get degraded it is a graded road if any degradation to the road does occur it needs to be brought back they will document the road prior to construction and if there's anything that goes on that degrades that road it will be brought back up to that standard before the actual construction is completed and then the applicability with federal and state laws uh tower inspections on a regular basis to ensure that the tower is safe and that everything is and there is maintained with integrity and lastly there is the shutdown the closeout if the tower ever is stopped being used if for some reason towers go the way of the winds there is a provision for removal and uh taking the tower down and so again those are very common language that we use in all our pwsf applications and that's to ensure that the tower is safe that it remains you know in good working order and that when its day is done that it's taken down with that mr chair staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the bocc or the board approve z2511 with the conditions and bases as listed in your staff report that concludes staff presentation thank you any questions for staff i do sir um thank you for doing this uh comprehensive uh review of this special exception and i uh but i have some questions that i just weren't answered um in the uh requirement to uh take down the uh or once the the the poll is uh lived its life um what is there any type of trust money that is put aside to take it down in case the entity which put it up or is then responsible for the unit uh is is available um i can directly answer that and if the uh applicant has a follow-up there is no by this special use permit there is no money in trust it is the applicant's responsibility but there is no fund set aside or a a escrow account or anything like that that is set aside for the takedown of the tower um so the answer direct answer to the commissioner's question is no there is none okay um mr chairman i also had a discussion this is uh this uh monopole must have some type of um self and i'm trying to look for the the actual term but so that it it implodes on itself if it if it comes down rather than comes over in 194 feet there is a fall zone but i that's not my area of expertise mr chair so i'm going to defer either to our rf consultant or to the applicant themselves to to uh comment on that that's not my area of expertise so i'll defer to them but typically these the fall radius of the tower these days are zero and you're like well how does the tower have a zero fall radius well that's what i thought because they fall on them or it bends over it basically bends in half and falls on and once it bends into itself then the likelihood of any additional failure becomes almost nil but they could probably comment more specifically on what the design of the tower was because i don't remember thank you would you like me to answer your question yes sir yes sir so gary hunter by the way on behalf of the applicant which next tower communications um in your application package there's a letter from saver industries um and in that letter they this they're the engineering firm that describes the fall zone for this tower and it's uh 50 feet so it's a 50 foot radius the tower the tower itself is 194 feet there's a five foot lightning rod above the top of the tower but um it would fall basically within 25 percent of the height of the tower so 50 foot fall radius thank you thank you and what about the um uh money to take down the uh a derelict yeah well yes sir um so again your staff answered the question properly they don't require the county does not require a bond um so you know are we prepared to take down that we've never had to take down a tower and we've been here for a long time um i know i look youthful but i've actually been in front of alachua county for as long as towers have existed so since the mid to mid 90s early 90s um and the bottom line is the county doesn't require a bond um so there's no resource other than the applicant our resources to take a tower down we've never had to do that so i mean i suppose the county could add an additional condition that that a bond uh be placed relating to but all that's honestly all that's doing is making the cost of the of the service more expensive um because the applicant's not going to i mean the applicant can only pay for so much otherwise the carriers who operate on the tower are going to be paying the costs associated with the with the bond so but could we provide a bond yes we could provide a bond to to provide the security that you're asking about to take the tower down in the event that um you know the use was no longer needed we have any more questions in this thank you sir go ahead yep question for mr brington um so in the plan in the 5.8.1 um it says the wireless communication shouldn't be located in a place where there's potential for for bird kills um could we talk about how these poles impact birds because this is the hot spot for birds along the lake mr brown is here from epd and i'm sure can provide a little more comment on again i'm not qualified to answer that but epd is here to answer that question okay i appreciate the opportunity here uh there are guidelines on where they place in terms of uh uh restrictions and lighting and everything on that's one of the things that the tower has been very good about trying to limit the power lighting that actually attracts as well as detracts the potential road kill i mean a bird kill so being in a pasture area like that and well seen that from that standpoint they don't see it as a condition you know when it's in a heavily forested area there's more opportunity for bird kill so one of the things we look at is make sure there's a clear zone and this the monopole design have a less impact on birds than the other types right right yeah so ironically areas it's not supposedly further away from noonan's lake near water bodies you know it's more problematic because they may see something they think is water and come in and but in this case it's open pastures they should be able to see it without any problem okay thank you excuse me can i follow up on that question aren't we talking about both day and night bird kills because a lot of the bird kills happen at night and so if this is going in blind and we have migratory birds at night which is usually the time that's when the bird kills would increase well actually that's a good point that the technology's changed so that the the biggest problem with uh to sell towers are actually the guide wires because you can't see them when you're a bird so the fact they're going to the the monopole and not having that you know structural support actually limits that potential for uh you know bird kill yeah uh thank you i appreciate that um my other question it's more of a statement i appreciate the um the photos of the impact the visual impact and the comp plan talks to that but i'll bring up the same thing i brought up last time that a wireless um hole was in front of us is that um especially those plant appliance they're going to come down in 10 years so i mean it's kind of a moot point and on the private land they could harvest you know the the trees as well so and across the lake would probably be a guide a good picture to have for visual impact as well but um i'm not going to contest any of that based on that but i just think it's um not it's not a um the comp plan calls for a balance of of the you know capital improvements for wireless services and the visual impact of the design the thing is those trees could be gone actually mr chair is that for the south that's a conservation area that's concert well i was just about to say the um the area the parcel immediately to the south is owned by the water management district but the other other part so but i could yeah i was just wanted to vouch at least for the parcel to the south is under the jurisdiction with the preservation probably the lake shore could not be harvested because it's probably a lot of cypress there there is outstanding there's an outstanding water buffer um so again but there's planted pines don't want to totally but there is a again like you said by the lake and at least this one to the south um is under a land use where that probably is unlikely all right thank you thank you mr chair any other questions down here i do when i was on site and i was starting to turn around i found that the road was pretty restrictive but fortunately right across from it was a um was a road that teed into it so you could use that but it stuck it occurred to me while we were talking and from before that we not only need to have the restoration of the road done but we need to have the restoration of any damage that was done by what you know the contractors to the uh somebody else's property the one you backed up on yeah but it was a road it was a road and had a gate you know it wasn't like it was i was not the first one and i'm sure you might be able to find my truck you know but i don't think so otherwise you're not going to get out of there you're going to be doing more damage that was the least damage i think there was no damage but that's what i was concerned about because that's i do enough construction that it's it's going to happen and so you might as well uh put in some provision for it you have a question um can i go ahead and make a motion oh not yet we still got to hear from you all right um just out of curiosity on the heights understanding the taller it is the more coverage you get but the taller it is the more visually effective guide wires come in so having the visual impact and the bird concerns causes smaller towers but a lot more of them is that correct in general the taller the tower the more coverage but there is a point of diminishing returns okay so the rf that's the rf engineer's task to do that like what what is the because they don't want to build a 300 foot tower there if they only need 200 because again that's that's more money than them they're not trying to spend excess money if not necessary and i can't speak for t-mobile's rf engineer but as an rf engineer myself we generally look for the most and best design that makes the least impact so as you soften the coverage map with the 200 foot tower it basically bridge the gap between the two towers so there's really no need to go north and south yeah there's really no need to go go taller the east side was still yeah so there may be but that that looked like a lot of there's a lot of open land maybe they're not as concerned it's they're trying to get at where it's more densely populated there it looks to me like not that it's heavily populated there but there is a more dense population area but yes in general the higher you go uh the more coverage thank you yep good evening commissioners uh gary hunter here on behalf of the applicant your staff does a wonderful job with these i do these all over the state and uh very rarely do i find the staff analysis and presentation as thorough as y'all staff um does this so i'm not going to sit here and repeat the things that they said i will answer a few questions um related to the access issue you you're correct that's a very narrow dirt road it's the county maintains it but to the east of where that site is located so as you continue in front of the site it's not a county maintained area of the road um the the good news is that when the applicant builds the tower they will have a access drive down to the tower with a turnaround at the tower for exactly the reason that you know because it is hard to turn around on that road um i mean the the vehicles that will travel to that site or i mean maybe once per month uh obviously there'll be equipment there when the tower is being installed but after that it'll be um very infrequent when when anyone's visiting the tower site itself um also from from a um to commissioner young's point uh you're you're correct there's pine trees in the vicinity and you're you're also correct that at times those get harvested i mean the good news uh for where this site is concerned it's at least to the south west part of that site that whole area is owned by the water management district so you know presumably they they can cut trees off of their site too but it's unusual they don't do it as frequently as someone who's harvesting pine trees i'll i'll say this i mean and you can see from this site uh t-mobile wanted to be 250 feet in height they asked for a tower that was 250 feet in height we told them 250 feet is not going to work in this rural area it needs to be below 200 feet so that it's not lit at night so that it's a monopole design so all of the does and and then the location of the tower down the southeast eighth avenue off of the the main roadway was all designed to minimize the visual impact and and um to the applicants credit one me uh but in searching for a site and i mean there are not a lot of sites out here to identify to find so that i thought of all the sites i've done um all over florida uh and beyond this one was a very well located um site given the conditions that they had to deal with out there so um i'm happy to answer any questions that you all have but otherwise we very much appreciate your consideration favorably hopefully and um thank you for your time any questions real quick one i i was going to ask earlier that the 199 height prevents the it from being lit correct that's correct it's 200 is exactly right and again the tower itself is 194 feet and there's a five foot lightning rod above that mr chair i move that the staff report application z two five zero zero zero zero zero one one be approved a second do we have any discussion from the audience any more questions i move to amend the motion to include a provision that asks the board of county commissioners to consider the need for funds to be put aside by the applicant to uh be available over time or during the period of use for the site so that if it is abandoned it can be torn down at no cost to the public it's a really long amendment do you want to shorten it i was doing it winging a prayer uh sure um that we asked the uh county commission to uh consider requiring for all all types of uh polls to be put up for communications uh to let me let me write it down on the back of my mr chair i can make a suggestion if the commissioner is willing um that you ask the bocc to consider the need for funds to be put aside for the applicant for decommissioning i'm sorry for who for decommissioning no no who put it the applicant that the applicant put aside the money that's correct that's great do we have a second to that is i'll second it okay um mr chair i can we separate that out into its own motion well he he has to have it amended so how i have the motion now is to approve transmissial with a request for the applicant to put aside funding for decommissioning so that's the current one that's on the table that's been seconded so we can discuss it okay so i mean i assume you have a question or discussion point yes mr chair um this isn't a issue um and it's creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist um i i just don't want to add something that we have no information about we don't know how many have been decommissioned in the county how many are scheduled to have at the end of its life i mean i we saw where um replacement doesn't require special exception um so that would probably be what would happen to be a replacement rather than abandonment it's just not a problem so i don't want to propose something that a solution a problem that doesn't exist um so i i oppose the amendment mr chairman one second let me see if anyone else has a comment does anyone else have a comment on the mr chair um i i'm not um suggesting the motion in one way or another except to say that staff certainly could do that research and identify whether you know provide some data for the board to consider if that's the will of the planning commission anyone have a question down here i just want to make a comment mr chair i know um in certain states i understand texas did have a problem where uh abandonment of different companies where it was a a problem um i understand i haven't heard a problem in large accounting but it's not a bad idea to consider is there any other questions down here the only comment that i would say before we give you a tense to respond is um are we treating them differently than anyone else who constructs something in alachua county who's going to take the home down who's going to take the strip mall down who's going to take the auto parts store down are we are we asking them to be singled out in any way values okay well let me tell you that i've actually written uh ordinances for other uh communities and counties uh concerning this and uh have always placed into the uh the requirement that there be funds set aside and the reason for this is that we don't know first of all who's going to own uh the facility let me call it a facility in the future we don't know uh also what the technology will look like in the future for instance you say well we don't know how many have been placed uh put up in the community uh how many have put funds set aside uh to take down those uh facilities at the end of their useful uh lifetime the issue that you have is that uh there are places that may have to be taken down in the future or they all will probably have to be taken down in the future and for instance we didn't think about low orbit satellites for communications four or five years ago and now we're looking at that instead of uh the uh communications satellites in synchronous uh orbit around the earth they're down at a lower level and that looks like it's the more um economic way to provide local communications so we don't know how long the life will be and we don't know if t-mobile will be in business or uh musk uh satellites are going to be in business or who well whoever is going to be in it the reason that i and let me tell you that it it's just a way in which to provide to prevent the public for having to take down the facilities in the future rather than have derelict places that we've had in the past this isn't on public land it's not public leased land we didn't have that issue when we moved away from direct tv and into streaming we didn't have that issue when technology developed from two-way radios that were long band radios where you saw the short wave radio antennas that were out on every single farmhouse and they they took care of their private radio towers well i i don't disagree with you but these are much larger and evident in the uh in the landscape than those smaller light uh places but i will tell you that um that we do have a problem in in some areas with uh oil derricks and that has been a problem in the in the past they're a problem right now um and it's the public that has to bear the cost for closing and tearing down what i'm looking for is something that protects the public in the future and uh i don't think that it would be be that expensive to come up with a bond to make sure that it comes down did you have a question all right i have found that bonds are more expensive than i expected them to be and so i think the idea of probing this and asking it to be reviewed has has some sanity to it um i'm not trying to hold up this particular um this particular request request but i think it's something that could be interesting but i think the expense is high what i am concerned with is probably doing a provision that says suggesting that if um the pole would be replaced at its end of its life and a new one would take its place however it is whether it's close or not close that the company be responsible for dismantling that so you don't have a monopole sitting up with no particular function you know that's those are two a couple things but i don't think that we're going to settle it for this but we could um probe it and ask that the commission that you know consider it out of curiosity has staff explored any of decommissionings of any structures like this mr chair we have not we were just discussing it the only thing in our code that would have a bond similar to this would be like a um a landfill and that's usually a bond that's held by the state um for decommissioning um we don't have anything that would be local and i would just um we we did just update um our pwsf code last year um and we had a consultant um on board for that and looked for best practices that was not something that was identified but it doesn't mean that it's not something that we could um add into our land development regulations and for something in the future okay so i have a procedural question if you don't mind um mr attorney i know the board of county commission does split motions frequently um is that something we could do tonight on this motion so mr chair one way that you could split this motion uh because we do not have an ordinance in place that you know we would cite to and say the bond is is x dollars or you know this is the the surety that you need to provide uh you could split this as a motion on approve deny or approve with conditions the application as it stands now under our current code with a separate motion of asking the border county commissioners or recommending to the border county commissioners that they direct staff to look into this issue uh and come back with some sort of a proposal that would be one way that you could that you could feasibly split this as the as the member who proposed the uh amendment i uh have no uh problem in withdrawing it and then for the uh purpose of recommending approval of the petition and then putting another motion asking the board of county commissioners to do exactly what the county attorney has said so is there any more discussion so how i understand it is the original motion to approve z two five zero zero zero zero one one as written without amendment i think our set my second needs to agree all in favor hi hi any opposed and i'll entertain a second motion i move that we recommend the border county commissioners uh ask the planning staff to make a report to the planning commission uh concerning the appropriateness of requesting or requiring uh funds to be set aside or in some way made so that once the utility of a pwsf is that what it's called uh can be removed when it is no longer of any utility okay do i have a second second any discussion on that mr chair i'm i appreciate your concern that this is um singling out one type of um capital improvement over others we don't require for others other than the landfill as the example which is an extraordinary circumstance so um i will not be supporting the motion any other discussion go ahead the uh you know when we talk about buildings and others being um re repositioned um for other uses um i can think of all sorts of ideas on what to do with almost every building i can't think of too much to do with this uh with a monopole with the exception of a really tall flag like three children that would challenge you okay is there anyone here that would like to have input on the current motion mr chair mr chair i have one i'm just want to clarify my understanding this motion is this for them to have to look in for future to recommend that right direct staff that's correct then the motion is for report to us on that um yeah to recommend that they direct staff to look into it and come back to us with some information okay and this would be applicable for all future considerations not specific to this one yes ma'am okay that's fair yes ma'am okay there was a question to declare if it was just a monopole construction or for any cell tower any pw ss so it would be any type of cell tower okay but it's limited to the cell tower any further discussion all right all in favor aye any opposed nay all right motion carries all right that is on to agenda item number four approval of minutes of last meeting mr chairman i've reviewed the uh minutes and i recommend uh or i move approval of the minutes for the may 2025 planning commission meeting okay do you have a second mrs on chair i second that motion all right any discussion on the minutes all in favor aye any opposed all right you saw your attendance report anyone have any issues with the attendance report all right is there any other public comment for tonight i have one question of staff um the applications um for the two seats that are up um do you know when that's due yes thank you mr chair the um two sites that are or two seats that are coming up um those two positions will go to the board on the july 8th board of county commissioners meeting uh so the deadline is there one um because i couldn't find one in the announcement it's it's it's pretty much passed yeah okay yes and we do have um uh applications for those positions okay so my understanding the application is available now or it's closed um i think if someone submitted one today we'd still figure out a way to get it in okay mr chair i have one other thing the financial disclosure forms that are done every year by you guys need to be done through the supervisor of elections by july 1st july 1st i'm sorry i'm sorry yes does it go i'm sorry yes july 1st when i was reading it because i just submitted mine i think it was monday to the ethics commission yes it doesn't it goes the ethics commission or to both the xf yeah ethics commission and supervisor election does it i think we can find out and we'll send out a clarifying email on that okay thank you any commissioner comments meetings adjourned