Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLOG ITEM 33 -52-107 • i Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 8:46 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW:Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility project FYI Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a?co.jefferson.wa.us J T ► f 4 !F 3 $ N C O U N T Y y WATERSHED RESOURCE CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:3o p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: Scott Shock [mailto:ssshock @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:42 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility project To Whom it May Concern: My family owns property in the Blueberry Hill subdivision adjacent to this proposed cell tower. I agree fully with the comments expressed by one of the subdivision residents below. This tower should be located elsewhere in the copious open space of clearcuts on the peninsula, out of sight and far from existing residences. Best regards, Scott Shock On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Bonnie Story<storyboard.pro a gmail.com>wrote: Thank you for your links and documents. Here are my concerns now that I have had a chance to find out more about the project. Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility Project http://test.co.Jefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/Browse.aspx?startid=1189481&dbid=1 LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: 1 � 52—Of E 411 • In the paperwork it says that "more site photos can be provided if necessary" in a hand-written note on the margin. Well, more photos are necessary. The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the very spot where the tower is being proposed, from my reckoning. Furthermore, the position of the provided photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homeowners here. The viewpoint needed, where the photo will have the most meaning, is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de- sac of Blueberry Hill Drive. This is quite obvious to anyone actually visiting the site, I have no idea how this was missed. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far) tower. A rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul-de-sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors. That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive, see a tower 2/3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood, turn around, and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UPPER Cul-de- sac. The single view presently offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision, partially obscured by trees as shown, is meaningless. MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Zike left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd. This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader to my best knowledge, which is the newspaper of legal record,but rather in the Peninsula Daily News, which appears to be a mistake. Also there has never been any kind of required SIGNAGE posted on the site at all. I would have seen it. This appears to be the most serious public-notice oversight. I am exposed to the site frequently, if not daily, and at no time have I, to this day, seen any type of public notice sign. If I had seen it, I would certainly have investigated much sooner than my belated letter permitted me. AND: Why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all, to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. Are the above issues part of a concerted effort to downplay public information about this project, or just concerted ineptitude? Either way, the result has created an atmosphere of surprise and panic that is totally needless. That is what public notice laws were created to mitigate, correct? This is a remote community, and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters are very important since we are beyond normal newspaper delivery here. I would like an explanation of how the public notice sign and public notice letters were overlooked, whose fault it was that they were overlooked, and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be request41. I am h } ilt S 2 \--1-0 • • demanding that information about alternate sites be provided. The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700'that a 200'tower commands. Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes? To save AT&T money, undoubtedly. that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the language about the project, it is stated that there will be "no" lighting on the tower- "except FAA required aircraft lighting." WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING? I cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness/light pollution and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information. I am demanding that more specifications about the FAA aircraft lighting, written in English that a non-scientist can understand, and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night,by this proposed 200'tall tower. LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each, some more and some less, then $210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value. This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It may be conservative, as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue - Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20% expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood, that higher figure of lost value would amount to $420,000.00. This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation, with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction. All this, in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations... SENSELESS. Blueberry Hill residents are about to be asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend $100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites, I imagine a few of them is much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more financial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off, I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. ABSENCE OF PROJECT MANAGER ZOE ANN LAMP: Is it normal policy to have a project manager unreachable until one day before the close of a comment period? Is that just an accident this time, or does that happen all the time? I feel that a project manager could offer an integrated overview in a manner that clerks cannot... Has someone taken over the role of project manager? What are we supposed to think about Ms. Lamp's absence-until it is essentially too late for her to respond to any concerns? Again, is this business as usual, or are we just unlucky here? I woulappre ciate your candor about that rather remarkable timing. 3 SL( mow • • Thank you for your consideration. Sorry to be so gruff but when someone asks me for$60,000 they had better have a very very good reason. Bonnie Story 10/22/2013 360-765-0967 Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html? r=3&adxnnl=l&ref=realestate&adxnnlx=138248 6806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower-will-affect-property- values http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers-on-Residential- Property-V alues-BY-CAROL-C.-McDONOUGH-PhD.pdf http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.coin/questions-answers/ Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 ERA 33 4 ofd • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Carl Smith Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 8:28 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp;Stacie Hoskins Subject: FW:Toandos/Coyle cell tower: MLA1 3-001 1 6/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 Attachments: celletter.pdf After you have a chance to review this, let's plan to meet to discuss our response. Thanks, Carl From: ken shock [mailto:sailboi @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:53 PM To: Carl Smith; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; John Austin Cc: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Bonnie Story; ken shock; Terri Naughton; Mare; Jim Boyer; Larry Hovde; Richard Hild; Norman MacLeod; Dennis Schultz; Bud Schindler; Scott Shock; Larry Carter; ellen grus; George Sickel; jim hagen Subject: Fwd: Toandos/Coyle cell tower : MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 To : Carl Smith -Director Jeffco DCD Jeffco BOCC Carl Smith,David Sullivan, Phil Johnson and John Austin Please pay attention here, there is absolutely no reason to allow a 200ft cell tower (the height of a 19 story residential tower) to be built immediately adjacent to one of the few quality subdivisions on Coyle peninsula. The process has been flawed, the notice inadequate-the project has the earmarks of a railroad job. The homeowners in Blueberry Hill subdivision are livid-why has their been no ordinance limiting proximity of cell towers to homes and schools ???? Why has such a project not been placed before the BOCC prior to any planning action. This tower is to be the tallest structure in Jefferson county, it will be seen from Seabeck to the Canal bridge, and from Quilcene,the Bolton peninsula- down to Blackpoint, strobe lights flashing day and night. The home I built for my daughter's family on Lot#1 in Blueberry Hill, is the closest home to this monster tower, only a few hundred feet away. Our property value will be slammed, and the purposes of building in this remote spot totally degraded. This comes after the DCD forced us to spend over $20,000 and a year of dealings with five state and federal agencies because of the wetland on our property- a wetland that extends well into, and originates within the proposed cell site. Where are the wetland studies for this property?? Has the Army Corps been brought in?? State and Federal fish and wildlife??? Department of Ecology ?? You guys let this go forward and you will all be named in the litigation for damages- a civil suit will be filed. Sincerely, Ken Shock- General Partner Horizon Holding Family Limited Partnership Captain Cook, Hawaii 33 1 �t • • (please see the attached -I have not spoken to my neighbor-Attorney Gary Williams on this matter, but my action may well be joined with any that he choses to take) Forwarded message From: Gary Williams <gw @areyoucovered.com> Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:11 PM Subject: Toandos/Coyle cell tower : MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 To: zlamp @co jefferson.wa.us, adamee@adaptengr.com, anisa.a.latif @att.com, SHoskins @co.jefferson.wa.us, CZmolek @co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: kipamia @yahoo.com, Bonnie Story<bonnie @storyboardproductions.com>, sailboi@gmail.com, azzure @embargmail.com, Mare<msmitch @embargmail.corn> Please see attached letter. GARY WI.LIAMS Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Dr. Quilcene, WA 98376 360-765-0729 http://areyoucovered.com NOTICE:CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY This email and attachments are intended for the named recipients only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.Any unauthorized use, disclosure,distribution,copying or dissemination is strictly prohibited.If you receive this transmission in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. 2 • . „ Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Drive-Quilcene,Washington 98376 (360)76S-0729-gw@areyoucovered.com October 28, 2013 Jefferson County via email and postal mail Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Re: MLA 13-00116 AT&T proposed cell tower Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: I live at 252 Blueberry Hill Dr, quite close to the proposed cell tower. Blueberry Hill is a small residential area directly south of the planned tower. The residents here only recently learned of the proposed tower,and we were told that at least one of the comment periods has already expired. The key notice was published in the Peninsula Daily News,which is not in general circulation here. I'm writing to you to request a delay in approval of the tower and a hearing, so that perhaps litigation can be avoided. The planned tower exceeds two hundred feet in height,and will be illuminated. This will impact a wetland, create light pollution in a now-pristine environment,damage property values and create a health hazard for people and animals. I oppose it. Certainly there must be a location near here which would not encroach on our property. Vast portions of the Coyle/Toandos Peninsula have been clearcut and are devoid of life. Why not build the tower in one of the clearcuts? Please consider our request for a delay and a hearing. Sincerely, Willi ms Law ific GA Y WILLI MS `. i'VP —S_____z elk-T.1) S 1 Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Drive- Quilcene,Washington 98376 (360) 765-0729-gw @areyoucovered.com October 28, 2013 Jefferson County via email and postal mail Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Re: MLA 13-00116 AT&T proposed cell tower Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: I live at 252 Blueberry Hill Dr, quite close to the proposed cell tower. Blueberry Hill is a small residential area directly south of the planned tower. The residents here only recently learned of the proposed tower, and we were told that at least one of the comment periods has already expired. The key notice was published in the Peninsula Daily News, which is not in general circulation here. I'm writing to you to request a delay in approval of the tower and a hearing, so that perhaps litigation can be avoided. The planned tower exceeds two hundred feet in height, and will be illuminated. This will impact a wetland, create light pollution in a now-pristine environment, damage property values and create a health hazard for people and animals. I oppose it. Certainly there must be a location near here which would not encroach on our property. Vast portions of the Coyle/Toandos Peninsula have been clearcut and are devoid of life. Why not build the tower in one of the clearcuts? Please consider our request for a delay and a hearing. Sincerely, Willi ms Law ffic OCT 2 9 2013 GA Y WILLI MS t^rss 0'*il;1.2 I S Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 360-765-0736 msmitch @embargmail.com Sent by e-mail and U. S. Mail October 28, 2013 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street .t- Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: MLA 1 3-001 16 OCT 2 9 2013 AT&T proposed cell tower ^ ` g Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: This letter serves as my comment on this project. I also request notification of any hearings on this matter. I also request copies of any and all decisions on this project be sent to me. Comment: This application should not be approved or allowed. A 200 -foot cell tower is an industrial, commercial development in an otherwise rural, forested area. This kind of development is not in keeping with any other allowed uses of the neighboring parcels. Blueberry Hill is a large lot subdivision just south of the proposed site. We moved here in 2005 for the undisturbed quiet of the surrounding woods. This is an area of nice homes, tucked in the private settings, with views of the Olympics and trees. This is a gravel road, with no street lights. We want to maintain our pristine wooded neighborhood. This project will intrude on that tranquility with lights and noise, not to mention the unsightly visible tower looming on the horizon. The physical presence of this tower will permanently change the view and will impact property values for our whole subdivision. • Jefferson County Community Development Re: MLA 13-00116 October 28, 2013 The physical presence of this tower raises many safety and health concerns about exposure to the electrical and cell transmissions, the science of which is still undetermined, and this too will negatively impact resale value. Too many unanswered questions remain about the full impact of the cell tower to our neighborhood to allow this project to go forward. Please do not permit this project at this site. Thank you. Sincerely, 'YY1 ) I i0 Marilyn Mitchell ## �3 ,.. .. .. . TAC:IrlIMA \'IVIA.. f363 —vs. "., USA 1. ... 4V/16` Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Dr. Quilcene,WA 98376-9667 i,-11 PIA Vii . , . _. 2i---,," CW:71 201...`i r .3.4 I_ A-1 r,.i. ,,--• . „Th ,_. .;:::,c,- 4=i Jer-Fe 1 ,seN1 c 00/07 , rIc.1 r lc-0 ...,,,,,, co DEPP,-(CrritiCE of", N iy‘INA 01\ I'M beVa--bPrielY11— 16%) c))EULWPErr RUEA4J D1 WS/ o rr -- c.....z., • 6 2 I SH ER-1 DINO sT. . ,.. ....... _.... it RI- --TOWN st*D 'De 36e:2 4 3 92 i tki011,1),A4Z16, 1111111,111111)/1111,1 1 i • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Gary Williams[gw @areyoucovered.com] Sent: Monday,October 28,2013 2:12 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp; adamee @adaptengr.com;anisa.a.latif @att.com;Stacie Hoskins; Colleen Zmolek Cc: kipamia @yahoo.com; 'Bonnie Story';sailboi @gmail.com;azzure @embargmail.com; Mare Subject: Toandos/Coyle cell tower: MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 Attachments: celletter.pdf Please see attached letter. GARY WILLIAMS Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Dr. Quilcene,WA 98376 360-765-0729 http://areyoucovered.com NOTICE:CONFIDENTIAUPROPRIETARY This email and attachments are intended for the named recipients only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.Any unauthorized use, disclosure,distribution,copying or dissemination is strictly prohibited.If you receive this transmission in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. it II LLKi 1 'I ' `� • • r ' • Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Drive-Quilcene,Washington 98376 (360)765-0729-gw@areyoucovered.com October 28, 2013 Jefferson County via email and postal mail Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Re: MLA 13-00116 AT&T proposed cell tower Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: I live at 252 Blueberry Hill Dr, quite close to the proposed cell tower. Blueberry Hill is a small residential area directly south of the planned tower. The residents here only recently learned of the proposed tower,and we were told that at least one of the comment periods has already expired. The key notice was published in the Peninsula Daily News,which is not in general circulation here. I'm writing to you to request a delay in approval of the tower and a hearing, so that perhaps litigation can be avoided. The planned tower exceeds two hundred feet in height, and will be illuminated. This will impact a wetland,create light pollution in a now-pristine environment, damage property values and create a health hazard for people and animals. I oppose it. Certainly there must be a location near here which would not encroach on our property. Vast portions of the Coyle/Toandos Peninsula have been clearcut and are devoid of life. Why not build the tower in one of the clearcuts? Please consider our request for a delay and a hearing. Sincerely, Willi ms Law ffic / ....., '"■--___________, GA Y WILLI MS LOU 1 1 UV) AA �+ _ t • • a , • Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn<kipamia @yahoo.com> October 22,2013 8:38 PM czmolek@co.jefferson.wa.us zlamp@co.jefferson.wa.us "bonnie @storyboardproductions.com"<bonnie @storyboardproductions.com> MLA13-00116 To Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Atten: Colleen Zmolek Zoe Ann Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn l E C E 0 V i Mailing address: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 I OCT 2 8 2013 808-896-3394 j Li Property address: I DEPT.OFJEFFERSON COMM O ITY DEVELOPMENT 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Regarding: Formal pleading comments(hard copy to follow) MLA 13-00116 Type II Land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Ms Zmolek and Ms Lamp: As a concerned property owner and soon to be full time resident of 265 Blueberry Hill, Quilcene, WA, I am submitting my pleading comments for your consideration regarding the proposed AT&T 200+foot cell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA. I am horrified that Jefferson County would even consider approving the construction of a such an intrusive 200+foot tower so close to an already established residential community such as Blueberry Hill. It is unbelievable that AT&T could not secure a more suitable siting for such a TALL cell tower somewhere along the MILES AND MILES of uninhabited and non residential land on the Coyle peninsula that would not destroy the beauty and serenity of such a small neighborhood as Blueberry Hill. PLEASE provide me with a listing of all the other sitings that were considered by AT&T for this 200+ foot cell tower and AT&T's reasoning as to why they chose 9395 Coyle Road. Did AT&T look into sharing with the cell tower that is already located on Coyle road? WHY DOES AT&T NEED SUCH A TALL TOWER? A 200+ foot unsightly cell tower would ruin the aesthetic nature of the area surrounding our homes on Blueberry Hill and have an adverse impact on our small community. The 7 homeowners on Blueberry Hill have strived to maintain the natural forested beauty surrounding our homes and a 200+ 33 . • foot cell tower NEXT DOOR(not much more that the length of a football field away)would destroy the very reason that we chose to live on Blueberry Hill. I agree with Bonnie Story that the pictures taken to show that this 200+ foot tower would not be visible from our homes on Blueberry Hill and from Coyle road are insufficient. I suggest, as did she, that AT&T construct a 200+foot temporary tower to show what the visual affect would actually be on our community. In addition many of us have 2 story homes on Blueberry Hill. I would be devastated if instead of a beautiful untouched forest view from my master bedroom, I would now wake up to a 200+foot cell tower. Property values on Blueberry Hill would dramatically decline(15% - 20%) and the pool of potential buyers would significantly decrease in part due to the visual ugliness of a 200+foot cell tower both from the homes and from the approach to Blueberry Hill from Coyle road and in part due to the public's perception and fear of cell towers being so close to their homes and children. AT&T should be able to locate a siting for this 200+foot cell tower that does not affect the "nest eggs" of those of us that strived all our lives for a secure future and a comfortable retirement in the homes of our dreams, for me that is 265 Blueberry Hill. The Blueberry Hill community and adjacent properties including 9395 Coyle road have protected WETLANDS on their land, habitat to many wildlife including a multitude of birds. The residents of Blueberry Hill went to great lengths to protect the WETLANDS during construction of their homes and continue to protect the WETLANDS and the wildlife the WETLANDS support. A 200+foot cell tower will have a significantly NEGATIVE impact on the wildlife especially the BIRDS and is of significant environmental concern. How has AT&T assured that the WETLANDS located on 9395 Coyle road will be preserved and protected and that the wildlife and birds supported by the WETLANDS will not be negatively affected by a 200+ foot cell tower? Please be advised that I will be submitting for an ENVIRONMENTAL review of this application with the FCC. OTHER CONCERNS: ACCESS/CRIMINAL ACTIVITY/OFF ROAD ACTIVITY It is of concern to me that access to the siting for the 200+foot cell tower will lead to more traffic and NOISE from both AT&T workers and unauthorized visitors both on the 200+foot cell tower access road and onto Blueberry Hill. Unwanted access always brings with it the concern of potential criminal activity which is of great concern when living in such a remote community such as Blueberry Hill. LIGHTING POLLUTION Lighting on top of this 200+foot cell tower is an issue both from an environmental concern for our nocturnal wildlife and birds and from a pollution stand point of our night sky and ability to even sleep without being disturbed by bright lights. Lighting this high has to be confusing to the bird population. NOISE POLLUTION [C F Q V E What exactly will be stored in the 12' x 26 feet ground equipment shelter? Why does AT&T need equipment for a cell tower? Will there be NOISE from the equipment such as generators? OCT 2 8 2013 How often will the equipment need to be utilized? JEFFERSON COUNTY 3 3 DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : ac • • SOUND travels far on Blueberry Hill and excessive NOISE is of great concern. SUMMARY of CONCERNS: *Decline of property value *Fewer prospective buyers *NOISE pollution *LIGHT pollution *WILDLIFE Habitat destruction *Disturbance of protected WETLANDS *Increased traffic *Unauthorized access *Criminal activity *View destruction *Destruction of the natural forest setting and beauty of BLUEBERRY HILL! I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and welcome any questions or comments. Thank 4, _,i ' ,,� �1 Vick i Hutc�hison�Niederkorn D L` _if) NT 28 2013 313 JEFFERSON COUNTY iy r DEPT,OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - t?PN1MT lit U.S.POSTAGE HONOLULU 1-11 967 14 96740 Jack Niederkorn !f ) ) :i 4:. / u, (--,co Vicki Hutchison Niederkom 7'3 0:2; .7;013 174 5 L C‘ACbrOlf"? 0 ''.3 • .1 68-3567 Awarnort Way ..... - i ,Ri,,„, ,,,,,,b/ 06?',APC '' Waikoloa,HI 96738 - . A t i, _. , EC 4r9;:ei C.1 \s. ' ' (Thl C.., ).'.e.-f-sa, Guv■ \---i .0.-(, ea..„-k-AAA - _"---f op ek‘ ',/\ 1 , C Oti I-- a((--. , ‘Q) 1 i C., . 0 1 s t 6) St • w= v6svq-i,\JAVAVi , w ci -"3 Zr si..--33G19:24392i iiiii.iiiii=piiiiiiikiliiiiiii.iiii=ipiiiiiiiildridilinii • • To: DCD Development Review Division Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp, 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368 Project MLA 13-00116 Parcel 601 101 003 From: Bonnie B.Story C {E n/� 2 293 Blueberry Hill l� V LS Quilcene,WA 98376 360-765-0967 OCT 2 8 2013 10 Regarding: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSAL DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEM OPMFNT Type II land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road,Quilcene,WA 98376 Dear Ms. Lamp: As a concerned property owner and immediate neighbor of the project, I am submitting my pleading comments on the environmental impact of the proposed AT&T 200+foot cell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene,WA. Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that"more site photos can be provided if necessary"in a hand-written note on the margin.Well,more photos are necessary.The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the spot where the tower is being proposed, from my reckoning. Furthermore,the position of the photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homes. The viewpoint where the photo will have the most meaning and is the most badly needed is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac of Blueberry Hill Drive.This is quite obvious. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far)tower.A rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul-de-sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors.That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive,see a tower 2/3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood,turn around,and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac.The single view offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision,partially obscured by trees as shown, is meaningless. --foe unfi_offlb OCT 2 P `'; 3 J i PAGE TWO L) MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: ':1FMENT Allison Zike left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd.This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader,which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News,which appears to be a mistake. Also,why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all,to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. This is a remote community,and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters become very important. I would like an explanation of how the public notice in the newspaper and public notice letters were overlooked,and whose fault it was that they were overlooked,and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I am hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided.The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700'that a 200'tower commands.Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes?To save AT&T money,undoubtedly.that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the writeups about the project,it is stated that there will be "no"lighting on the tower- "except FAA required lighting."WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING?It cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information. I am demanding that more specifications about the lighting,written in English that a non-scientist can understand,and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night,by this proposed 200'tall tower. 3 • 10EOVE OCT 2 8 2013 PAGE THREE _ JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna.Property values and aesthetics,however, do qualify,according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each,some more and some less,then$210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value.This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes.It may be conservative,as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue- Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20%expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood,that higher figure of lost value would amount to $420,000.00.This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation,with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker,that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved,it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction.All this,in a place surrounded by forested,isolated locations. Blueberry Hill Residents are now being asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend$100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites.I imagine a few of them are much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more finacial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off,I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. I need a copy of any decisions or pending decisions made regarding this proposal. In addition, I would like to request a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 10-25-2013 Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=realestate&a dxnnlx=1382486806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower- will-affect-property-values I�iJ Q j tilt N-1) • http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers- on-Residential-Property-Values-BY-CAROL-C.-McDONOUGH-PhD.pdf http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ BRAG(tm)Antenna Ranking of Schools http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf ICEOVE OCT 2L 2013 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 • 4 / (-2 To: DCD Development Review Division Attn: Carl Smith Director, Jefferson County Department of Community Development �� �'-�'0 f j S-erieR fl7 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 C S � �c Project MLA 13-00116 Parcel 601 101 003 t L '- " JV From: Bonnie B.Story G714r 1' 293 Blueberry Hill Quilcene,WA 98376 j 360-765-0967 Regarding: COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSAL Type II land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road,Quilcene,WA 98376 Dear Mr.Smith: As a concerned property owner and immediate neighbor of the project,I am submitting my pleading comments on the environmental impact of the proposed AT&T 200+foot cell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road,Quilcene,WA. Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that"more site photos can be provided if necessary"in a hand-written note on the margin.Well,more photos are necessary.The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the spot where the tower is being proposed,from my reckoning. Furthermore,the position of the photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homes. The viewpoint where the photo will have the most meaning and is the most badly needed is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac of Blueberry Hill Drive.This is quite obvious. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far)tower.A rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul-de-sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors.That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive,see a tower 2/3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood,turn around,and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac.The single view offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision,partially obscured by trees as shown,is meaningless. 33 Ø4LM/44s ) 11■4 pp EA/ti CA-4 PAGE TWO l Y" MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: S J5 I` e i...... Allison Zike left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd.This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader,which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News,which appears to be a mistake. Also,why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all,to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. ,. This is a remote community,and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters become very important. I would like an explanation of how the public notice in the newspaper and public notice letters were overlooked,and whose fault it was that they were overlooked,and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. 4 v ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I am hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided.The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land,nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700'that a 200'tower commands.Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes?To save AT&T money,undoubtedly.that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the writeups about the project, it is stated that there will be "no"lighting on the tower- "except FAA required lighting."WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING?It cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information. I am demanding that more specifications about the lighting,written in English that a non-scientist can understand,and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night,by this proposed 200'tall tower. �.. . 8 2013 { i JEFFERSON COUNTY . .__ DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �� • PAGE THREE QCT 2 8 ;W7 LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": " ONeOtlinr ;,-• ,,i-1MM l DEVELOPME The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics,however, do qualify,according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each,some more and some less,then$210,000.00 is a rough estimate(10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value.This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It maybe conservative,as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue- Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20%expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood,that higher figure of lost value would amount to$420,000.00.This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation,with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker,that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction.All this,in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations. Blueberry Hill Residents are now being asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend$100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites. I imagine a few of them are much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more finacial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off,I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. I need a copy of any decisions or pending decisions made regarding this proposal. In addition, I would like to request a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration.Bonnie Story 10-25-2013 t Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=realestate&a dxnnlx=1382486806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower- will-affect-property-values 33 11.--0 0 • . http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers- on-Residential-Property-Values-BY-CAROL-C.-McDONOUGH-PhD.pdf http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ BRAG(tm)Antenna Ranking of Schools http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf 9-1 '6oc, 28 2013 \U JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOU IIEMM . TACO M A '4011.10i, 983 9L£86 Vm auookn 1.7.?i I i'i PIkt":1i VtIct4 3APC111M am(1m1E1£6Z suonanpom pieogAion ; s OCT 2,D-1.3 PM z,:i •i. ....... „.... Equality FOREVER 0: S11 7 '1 CO arr: OCT 2 S 2013 ......, .,, 6 ( P0,4 :I. • • :3 OCT 2 8 2013 To: DCD Development Review Division Attn: Colleen Zmolek '. COME OLD Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Project MLA 13-00116 Parcel 601 101 003 From: Bonnie B.Story 293 Blueberry Hill Quilcene,WA 98376 360-765-0967 Regarding: COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSAL Type II land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road,Quilcene,WA 98376 Dear Ms. Lfp: As a concerned property owner and immediate neighbor of the project, I am submitting my pleading comments on the environmental impact of the proposed AT&T 200+foot cell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene,WA. Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that"more site photos can be provided if necessary"in a hand-written note on the margin.Well, more photos are necessary.The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the spot where the tower is being proposed,from my reckoning.Furthermore,the position of the photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homes. The viewpoint where the photo will have the most meaning and is the most badly needed is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac of Blueberry Hill Drive.This is quite obvious. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far)tower.A rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul-de-sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors.That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive,see a tower 2/3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood,turn around,and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UPPER Cul-de-sac.The single view offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision,partially obscured by trees as shown,is meaningless. 433.. PAGE TWO OC1 Z 8 2Q13 MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Zike left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd.This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader,which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News,which appears to be a mistake. Also,why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all,to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. This is a remote community,and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters become very important. I would like an explanation of how the public notice in the newspaper and public notice letters were overlooked,and whose fault it was that they were overlooked,and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I am hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided.The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700'that a 200'tower commands.Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes?To save AT&T money,undoubtedly.that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the writeups about the project,it is stated that there will be "no"lighting on the tower- "except FAA required lighting."WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING?It cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information. I am demanding that more specifications about the lighting,written in English that a non-scientist can understand,and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night,by this proposed 200'tall tower. LUG 0 I E 33 • PAGE THREE OCT 2 8 2013 LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics,however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each,some more and some less,then$210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value.This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It may be conservative,as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue- Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20%expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood,that higher figure of lost value would amount to$420,000.00.This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation,with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker,that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved,it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction.All this,in a place surrounded by forested,isolated locations. Blueberry Hill Residents are now being asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend$100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites. I imagine a few of them are much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more finacial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off,I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. I need a copy of any decisions or pending decisions made regarding this proposal. In addition, I would like to request a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 10-25-2013 Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=3&adxnnl=l&ref=realestate&a dxnnlx=1382486806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower- will-affect-property-values 33 :v. offte • • PAGE THREE OCT 2 8 2013 LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics,however, do qualify,according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each,some more and some less,then$210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value.This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It may be conservative,as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue- Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20%expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood,that higher figure of lost value would amount to$420,000.00.This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation,with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker,that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved,it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction.All this,in a place surrounded by forested,isolated locations. Blueberry Hill Residents are now being asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend$100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites. I imagine a few of them are much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more finacial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off,I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. I need a copy of any decisions or pending decisions made regarding this proposal. In addition, I would like to request a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 10-25-2013 Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=realestate&a dxnnlx=1382486806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower- will-affect-property-values 33 • http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers- on-Residential-Property-Values-BY-CAROL-C.-McDONOUGH-PhD.pdf http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ BRAG(tm)Antenna Ranking of Schools http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf LrL 82013 LtJ WfE 7` 3 e( oftl, I Zoe Ann Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [kipamia @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:27 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: adamee @adaptengr.com; anisa.a.latif @att.com Subject: MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 Attachments: Couty letter#3.docx;ATT117289.htm e 1 1 1pM Fre 33 . • To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn MAILING address: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 808-896-3394 kipamia@yahoo.com PROPERTY address: 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Attention: Zoe Ann Lamp Regarding: Formal Pleading Comments MLA 13-00116 Proposed cell tower siting at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 1. I am requesting a formal hearing regarding this siting. I am requesting to be notified of any and all comments, plans, pending and final decisions with ample time to respond to such. 2. It is absolutely outrageous that AT&T cannot find a suitable siting for this 200+ foot tower other than less than 500 feet from an established neighborhood such as Blueberry Hill. I believe that Blueberry Hill is the only established neighborhood the entire length of Coyle road until reaching Coyle. It is unbelievable that Jefferson County is about to permit AT&T to bulldoze their way into our small little community of Blueberry Hill. It is ridiculous that the only place for 15+ miles on Coyle road for the siting of this intrusive 200+ foot cell tower is less that 500 feet away from the community of 7 homes on Blueberry Hill. It is absolutely unbelievable that there is not another siting along Coyle road that would meet the goals of AT&T without the negative impact on any established neighborhood. *Please provide me with all sitings that were considered for this 200+ foot cell tower with an explanation as to why they were not chosen for the project. *Please provide me with the justification for choosing 9395 Coyle road for this siting above other possible choices. *Please provide me with information regarding AT&T's attempt to construct a 200 foot lattice tower finaled 5/12/2010. Where was this 2-acre timber harvest siting and what were the reasons that it did not get constructed(13-00019)? • • 3. Please provide me with all cell towers that AT&T could co-locate with instead of building a new 200+foot cell tower with the intention of bringing in other carriers in the future to co-locate with them. It is not appropriate to construct a CELL TOWER FARM so close to an established residential community such as Blueberry Hill when there are so many miles of uninhabited area that could be utilized for this purpose that would have negligible affect on any communities. *Please inform me if AT&T researched co-location with any other wireless carriers? Please inform me as to why the cell tower that is already on Coyle road is not suitable for co-location. 4. It is ridiculous to suggest that existing vegetation will be able to screen a 200+ foot cell tower no matter how tall our natural trees may grow. This cell tower is going to be a visual blight on the community of Blueberry Hill and all those that travel Coyle road. 5. Noise pollution is going to happen with the maintenance of this 200+ foot cell tower and will increase if other wireless carriers co-locate to this siting. *Please inform me what noise is associated with the operation of such a large cell tower on a daily basis and how AT&T plans to mitigate such noise. Noise travels far in the forest and is not acceptable to those used to the quiet and solitude of living on Blueberry Hill. 6. What color could AT&T possibly pick to match the sky at 200+ feet up in the air? AT&T can not mask or blend this tower into the natural beauty of the current scenery. 7. At 200+ feet any lighting will be a disruption to those of us living less than 500 feet from this cell tower. It will be a hazard to our general well being to have the sky lit up at night by these required lights when it is a dark sky that now surrounds us. At that height light will travel well beyond 500 feet and be disruptive to those of us trying to sleep on Blueberry Hill. 8. The setbacks that are planned for this 200+ foot tower may sound sufficient in an urban setting but are completely unacceptable and ridiculous in this rural setting when there are miles and miles of uninhabited land where setbacks would not be an issue at all. How AT&T and Jefferson county can even consider erecting a cell tower so close to the established community of Blueberry Hill(422'9") when it could be erected in a siting that would not be close to any community is beyond belief. 9. AT&T cannot possible blend this 200+ foot cell tower and it will DISTURB THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE SETTING! • 10. PROTECTING POINTS OF VISUAL INTERST VIEWS It is not possible that AT&T can assure me that the beautiful forest and mountain view that I now have from my home on Blueberry Hill will not be significantly degraded by this 200+ foot cell tower. The pictures that were provided to alleviate any fears that my view would not be destroyed are totally inadequate especially since my home is two stories. *AT&T cannot claim that there are no other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less. *AT&T must prove that there are no colocations opportunities *AT&T cannot claim that development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area is not feasible. 11. Please explain the comments under Federal Requirements in the General Project Description regarding SPRINT's site(where is this site and could it be used for colocation)? Please add the above comments and concerns to my previous submission. Thank you, Vicki Hutchison Niederorn 33 ;"C5ea Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Stacie Hoskins Subject: FW: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! More comments Co Cie en Zmorek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a�co.jefferson.wa.us 1 C O U A I T Y WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP 77:": RESOURCE VENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter !Z_56 RCWV. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. [ @embargmail.com] M Sent:From:FridayTerri , October mailto:azzure 25, 2013 410 P To: Colleen Zmolek; jeffbocc Cc: Bonnie Story Subject: Re: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello -just wanted to voice my opinion as another property owner in the Blueberry Hill subdivision, adjacent to the proposed 200' (are you kidding me?) cell tower on Coyle Road. It concerns me that this development has apparently been in the works since last spring, and yet none of those directly affected were given a chance to comment until October 16th. The two-week window for comment closes on October 30th, and the planner assigned to this project is out of the office until October 29th!! I note that there is a small public notice posted along Coyle Road at the entrance to the property where the tower will be built, however, this sign is about 1' high by 2' wide and hardly noticeable to traffic speeding by at 50 mph. I also note that public notice has been published in the Leader and the PDN; however, please be aware that neither of those newspapers will deliver to this remote area. I would also like to point out that only ONE property owner on Blueberry Hill (Bonnie Story at 265 Blueberry Hill) received any mailed notice of this project. If the formula used to decide who received mailed notices had something to do with a distance radius from the site, please be informed that there are properties within our subdivision that are just as close, or closer, to the proposed site as Bonnie is. If there is a distanc reI ted radius that affects mailed notices, I would like to know what that distance is. J It is patently unfair to allow a project like this to proceed to this stage of the development process without sufficient notice to those whose views, property values and health may be affected by it. Mature fir trees typically average 40 to 80 feet in height, and this entire area was clear-cut less than 20 years ago. The current vs. proposed views shown on the current application show that the tower will not be visible; obviously this cannot be true. Please delay this project until its impacts on neighbors can be accurately and honestly measured. Thank you. Sincerely, Terri Murphy-Naughton 233 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene On 10/22/2013 11:46 AM, Colleen Zmolek wrote: MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility Hi Bonnie, Above is another link in case you had trouble with the first link I sent you. Have a great day. Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a�co.jefferson.wa.us 33 2 �' '�ff. S Zoe Ann Lamp From: Michelle McConnell Sent: Wednesday,October 23,2013 10:43 AM To: Mary Blain Cc: Colleen Zmolek; David W.Johnson; Carl Smith; Donna Frostholm; Frank Benskin; Frank Hall;Jim Coyne; Jodi Adams;Joel Peterson; Kaycee Hathaway;Stacie Hoskins;Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: [BULK] RE:cell tower application A0857294 ATTN ZOE ANN LAMP Jodi responded to her on Monday afternoon Michelle McConnell,Associate Planner-LRP Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient. `- SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary From: Mary Blain Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:39 AM To: #DCDStaff Subject: FW: [BULK] RE: cell tower application A0857294 ATTN ZOE ANN LAMP Has anyone looked into this?Just checking before I delete the message.. From: Bonnie Story [mailto:storyboard.pro@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:15 PM To: Colleen Zmolek; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; #dcd Subject: [BULK] RE: cell tower application A0857294 ATTN ZOE ANN LAMP To: Development Review Division Jefferson County Department of Community Development Hello, I am a neighbor within 1500 feet of the proposed tower. I have been unable to get a response from anyone at your dept in any way so far. Please help. What I need is an exact project map of where this is being proposed. Just the address is useless to us. --Will the tower be visible from the public driveway/Blueberry Hill Road or will it be obscured by trees? They should be required to erect a dummy tower to get this question answered or provide a reliable digital rendering. One of the real concerns we have is reduction of property values,which can be up to 20% according to the National Association of Realtors. This constitutes a "taking" that of course will trigger a fight. -- Will the project require filling of wetland? Many hours and dollars were spent convincing us that the wetland on our property, the same wetland on the proposed cell tower property, is valuable and should not be disturbed. Is AT&T playing by the same rules or do they have a high spot in there for the tower and don't need to fill in wetland? I cant tell from just an address. LLM --Where exactly is the site being proposed? That address covers a lot of acreage. # 3 3 1 IV s r�Fa�x �. ,, • Since we have only until the 30th to make a "pleading", we need help fast. THANK YOU. Please feel free to attach a detailed site map to my email address right away if possible, I can answer my own questions maybe and stop needing to inquire with you busy people which would be great. Sincerely, Bonnie Story Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.corn http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 WU EM 2 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Bonnie Story[storyboard.pro @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday,October 22,2013 5:31 PM To: jillian.martin @smartlinkllc.com; Colleen Zmolek;Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Hoskins; Carl Smith;Jodi Adams; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Ken Shock;Viviann Kuehl;Allison Arthur; charlie.bermant @peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Concerns with MLA13-00116 AT&T Mobility project Thank you for your links and documents. Here are my concerns now that I have had a chance to find out more about the project. Concerns with MLA13-0011.6 AT&T Mobility Project http://test.co.j efferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/Browse.aspx?startid=1189481&dbid=1 LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that "more site photos can be provided if necessary" in a hand-written note on the margin. Well, more photos are necessary. The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the very spot where the tower is being proposed, from my reckoning. Furthermore, the position of the provided photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homeowners here. The viewpoint needed, where the photo will have the most meaning, is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de- sac of Blueberry Hill Drive. This is quite obvious to anyone actually visiting the site, I have no idea how this was missed. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far) tower. A rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul-de-sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors. That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive, see a tower 2/3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood, turn around, and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UPPER Cul-de- sac. The single view presently offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision, partially obscured by trees as shown, is meaningless. MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Zike left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd. This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader to my best knowledge, which is the newspaper of legal record,but rather in the Peninsula Daily News, which appears to be a mistake. Also there has never been any kind of required SIGNAGE posted on the site at all. I would have seen it. This appears to be the most serious public-notice oversight. I am exposed to the site frequently, if not daily, and at no time have I, to this day, seen any type of public notice sign. If I had seen it, I would certainly have investigated much sooner than my belated letter permitted me. AND: Why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTEd ,all, to th 1 __ • • of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. Are the above issues part of a concerted effort to downplay public information about this project, or just concerted ineptitude? Either way,the result has created an atmosphere of surprise and panic that is totally needless. That is what public notice laws were created to mitigate, correct? This is a remote community, and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters are very important since we are beyond normal newspaper delivery here. I would like an explanation of how the public notice sign and public notice letters were overlooked, whose fault it was that they were overlooked, and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I am hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided. The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700'that a 200' tower commands. Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes? To save AT&T money, undoubtedly. that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the language about the project, it is stated that there will be "no" lighting on the tower- "except FAA required aircraft lighting." WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING? I cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness/light pollution and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information. I am demanding that more specifications about the FAA aircraft lighting, written in English that a non-scientist can understand, and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night,by this proposed 200'tall tower. LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each, some more and some less, then $210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value. This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It may be conservative, as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue - Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20% expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood, that higher figure of lost value would amount to $420,000.00. This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation, with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker,that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction. All this, in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations... SENSELESS. Blueberry Hill residents are about to be asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T does not have to spend $100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites, I imagine a few of them is much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site,but would cost AT&T some more financial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off, I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. ABSENCE OF PROJECT MANAGER ZOE ANN LAMP: Is it normal policy to have a project manager unreachable until one day before the close of a comment period? Is that just an accident this time, or does that happen all the time? I feel that a project manager could offer an integrated overview in a manner that clerks cannot... Has someone taken over the role of project manager? What are we supposed to think about Ms. Lamp's absence -until it is essentially too late for her to respond to any concerns? Again, is this business as usual, or are we just unlucky here? I would appreciate your candor about that rather remarkable timing. Thank you for your consideration. Sorry to be so gruff but when someone asks me for$60,000 they had better have a very very good reason. Bonnie Story 10/22/2013 360-765-0967 Read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html? r=3&adxnnl=l&ref=realestate&adxnnlx=138248 6806-M+c4RSiOfZrfwjrldGSeQQ http://bridgewater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower-will-affect-property- values http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Imp act-o f-Wireless-Towers-on-Residential- Property-Values-BY-CAROL-C.-McDONOUGH-PhD.pdf http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 ,,. 33 3 _ :,. MD • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:38 PM To: 'ken shock' Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Bonnie Story; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Jodi Adams Subject: RE: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Notices are posted in the Leader. Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(c ico.iefferson.wa.us I £ i f f R S O h C O U N T Y WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP RESOURCE CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:3o p.m.Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: ken shock [mailto:sailboi @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:35 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc: Stacie Hoskins; Bonnie Story; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Jodi Adams Subject: Re: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Thanks -perhaps I was not being clear, I understand that the notice was published in the PDN and not in the Leader- is this correct? Thanks, Ken On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Colleen Zmolek<CZmolek@co.jefferson.wa.us>wrote: Hi Ken, The public notice is in the file ZON13-00039.2. The affidavit and certificate of mailing has been added to the case file. 3 3 1 (( ' • • Please feel free to call or email if you cannot access the link. The file is available here at the office for your review. Co(teen Zmorek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a)co.iefferson.wa.us f F f E R & 0 k C O U N T Y WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP RESOURCE CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: ken shock [mailto:sailboagmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:55 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Cc: Bonnie Story; Colleen Zmolek; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Jodi Adams Subject: Re: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello Stacie Please provide us with a copy of the legal notice posted regarding this project- along with the specific information on the date and in which media this was posted. Thanks Ken Shock- Lot#1 Blueberry Hill subdivision LOG i EM 2 . • On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Stacie Hoskins <SHoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us>wrote: Hello, Bonnie. I can appreciate your concerns, and we will make the information available to you. We are working on scanning the file pp Y Y g g and making it available online. We expect to have this completed this morning. Colleen will email you when it is ready and provide the link. I cannot guarantee an extension of the time frame as it would need to be acceptable to the applicant. State requirements for permitting are strict in this regard. Please note your questions from your initial email qualify as comments on the proposal that we will consider in our review. Answers to your questions are as follows: 1. What I need is an exact project map of where this is being proposed. Just the address is useless to us. The map is attached to this message. 2. Will the tower be visible from the public driveway/Blueberry Hill Road or will it be obscured by trees? They should be required to erect a dummy tower to get this question answered or provide a reliable digital rendering. One of the real concerns we have is reduction of property values, which can be up to 20% according to the National Association of Realtors. This constitutes a "taking" that of course will trigger a fight. Your concern is noted and will be considered in our review of the project There are visual depictions of the site with the proposed tower in the file and attached to this message. 3. Will the project require filling of wetland? Many hours and dollars were spent convincing us that the wetland on our property, the same wetland on the proposed cell tower property, is valuable and should not be disturbed. Is AT&T playing by the same rules or do they have a high spot in there for the tower and don't need to fill in wetland? I cant tell from just an address. No. The proposed tower site is 719'2"from the edge of the wetland. 4. Where exactly is the site being proposed? That address covers a lot of acreage. The map is attached to this message. Best regards, Stacie Z. eo a Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Crr 3 • • Phone 360-379-4463 * Fax 360-379-4451 shoskins@ co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary From: Bonnie Story [mailto:storyboard.pro@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:19 PM To: Colleen Zmolek; Ken Shock; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Cc: Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Hoskins Subject: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello, As you apparently do not know, the COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES ON THE 30TH!!! SO ZOE ANN CANNOT BE OUR PLANNER!1111 This is not workable and we need some relief such as an extension immediately. Solutions? I cannot believe that she will be out until the day before the comment "pleading" period ends, could that be correct?? So, obviously there is trouble in paradise and something needs to be done. WE HAVE SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. A 200' TOWER WOULD BE THE TALLEST STRUCTURE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY??? Since this issue could cost me and all of my neighbors 20% of the value of our homes, obviously we are taking this seriously and we would appreciate not being the only ones who are. Could we connect on this ASAP2'?77 Thank you, Bonnie Story LAY3 Uz 33 4 �� 0 • • On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Colleen Zmolek<CZmolek @co.jefferson.wa.us>wrote: Hi Bonnie, I have forwarded your email to the planner reviewing the proposed cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene. The proposed application MLA13-00116 will be reviewed by Zoe Ann Lamp. Zoe Ann's contact information is phone number is 360-385-9406. Email zlamp @co.jefferson.wa.us Zoe Ann is currently out of the office for the week of October 21 and will return on October 29. Zoe is the person to answer your questions. If you would like to review the file please let me know and I will have it ready for your review. Sincerely, Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a�co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:3o p.m.Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. ( I . � 3 5 • • • From: Bonnie Story [mailto:storyboard.broftgmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:15 PM To: Colleen Zmolek; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; #dcd Subject: [BULK] RE: cell tower application A0857294 ATTN ZOE ANN LAMP To: Development Review Division Jefferson County Department of Community Development Hello, I am a neighbor within 1500 feet of the proposed tower. I have been unable to get a response from anyone at your dept in any way so far. Please help. What I need is an exact project map of where this is being proposed. Just the address is useless to us. -- Will the tower be visible from the public driveway/Blueberry Hill Road or will it be obscured by trees? They should be required to erect a dummy tower to get this question answered or provide a reliable digital rendering. One of the real concerns we have is reduction of property values,which can be up to 20% according to the National Association of Realtors. This constitutes a "taking" that of course will trigger a fight. -- Will the project require filling of wetland? Many hours and dollars were spent convincing us that the wetland on our property, the same wetland on the proposed cell tower property, is valuable and should not be disturbed. Is AT&T playing by the same rules or do they have a high spot in there for the tower and don't need to fill in wetland? I cant tell from just an address. -- Where exactly is the site being proposed? That address covers a lot of acreage. Since we have only until the 30th to make a "pleading", we need help fast. THANK YOU. Please feel free to attach a detailed site map to my email address right away if possible, I can answer my own questions maybe and stop needing to inquire with you busy people which would be great. Sincerely, Bonnie Story Bonnie Story [ EM StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com 6 jain_CYFIV . t • • http://back2theland.blogspot.corn 360-765-0967 Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 LUG 33 1 • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:30 PM To: 'ken shock'; Stacie Hoskins Cc: Bonnie Story; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Jodi Adams Subject: RE: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hi Ken, The public notice is in the file ZON13-00039.2. The affidavit and certificate of mailing has been added to the case file. Please feel free to call or email if you cannot access the link. The file is available here at the office for your review. Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(@,co.jefferson.wa.us Err,„ F S @ if C b U N Y Y WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP RESOURCE CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:30 p.m.Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: ken shock [mailto:sailboi @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:55 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Cc: Bonnie Story; Colleen Zmolek; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Jodi Adams Subject: Re: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello Stacie Please provide us with a copy of the legal notice posted regarding this project- along with the specific information on the date and in which media this was posted. Thanks LULi 1 1 LI ; Ken Shock- Lot#1 Blueberry Hill subdivision ... l02 of 19-0 On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Stacie Hoskins <SHoskinsAco.jefferson.wa.us>wrote: 1 • . 'y Hello, Bonnie. I can appreciate your concerns, and we will make the information available to you. We are working on scanning the file and making it available online. We expect to have this completed this morning. Colleen will email you when it is ready and provide the link. I cannot guarantee an extension of the time frame as it would need to be acceptable to the applicant. State requirements for permitting are strict in this regard. Please note your questions from your initial email qualify as comments on the proposal that we will consider in our review. Answers to your questions are as follows: 1. What I need is an exact project map of where this is being proposed. Just the address is useless to us. The map is attached to this message. 2. Will the tower be visible from the public driveway/Blueberry Hill Road or will it be obscured by trees? They should be required to erect a dummy tower to get this question answered or provide a reliable digital rendering. One of the real concerns we have is reduction of property values,which can be up to 20% according to the National Association of Realtors. This constitutes a "taking" that of course will trigger a fight. Your concern is noted and will be considered in our review of the project. There are visual depictions of the site with the proposed tower in the file and attached to this message. 3. Will the project require filling of wetland? Many hours and dollars were spent convincing us that the wetland on our property, the same wetland on the proposed cell tower property, is valuable and should not be disturbed. Is AT&T playing by the same rules or do they have a high spot in there for the tower and don't need to fill in wetland? I cant tell from just an address. No. The proposed tower site is 719'2"from the edge of the wetland. 4. Where exactly is the site being proposed? That address covers a lot of acreage. The map is attached to this message. Best regards, Stacie 4. qod¢io.4 Planning Manager,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend,WA 98368 / f Phone 360-379-4463 * Fax 360-379-4451 LUG I I EM shoskinsPco.►efferson.wa.us tr.) 2 `~ • S Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW `iA SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary From: Bonnie Story [mailto:storyboard.pro @ tgmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:19 PM To: Colleen Zmolek; Ken Shock; Marilyn TEXT Mitchell; Terri; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Cc: Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Hoskins Subject: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello, As you apparently do not know, the COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES ON THE 30TH!!! SO ZOE ANN CANNOT BE OUR PLANNER" This is not workable and we need some relief such as an extension immediately. Solutions? I cannot believe that she will be out until the day before the comment "pleading" period ends, could that be correct?? So, obviously there is trouble in paradise and something needs to be done. WE HAVE SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. A 200' TOWER WOULD BE THE TALLEST STRUCTURE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY??? Since this issue could cost me and all of my neighbors 20% of the value of our homes, obviously we are taking this seriously and we would appreciate not being the only ones who are. Could we connect on this ASAP'9' '9 Thank you, Bonnie Story On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Colleen Zmolek<CZmolek@co.jefferson.wa.us> •33 .,,,,z3;10 N-i) 3 • • Hi Bonnie, I have forwarded your email to the planner reviewing the proposed cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene. The proposed application MLA13-00116 will be reviewed by Zoe Ann Lamp. Zoe Ann's contact information is phone number is 360-385-9406. Email zlamp@co.jefferson.wa.us Zoe Ann is currently out of the office for the week of October 21 and will return on October 29. Zoe is the person to answer your questions. If you would like to review the file please let me know and I will have it ready for your review. Sincerely, Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolekco.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:3o p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: Bonnie Story [mailto:storvboard.pro©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:15 PM 423 4 J ,- ®f • • To: Colleen Zmolek; Carl Smith; Zoe Ann Lamp; #dcd Subject: [BULK] RE: cell tower application A0857294 ATTN ZOE ANN LAMP To: Development Review Division Jefferson County Department of Community Development Hello, I am a neighbor within 1500 feet of the proposed tower. I have been unable to get a response from anyone at your dept in any way so far. Please help. What I need is an exact project map of where this is being proposed. Just the address is useless to us. -- Will the tower be visible from the public driveway/Blueberry Hill Road or will it be obscured by trees? They should be required to erect a dummy tower to get this question answered or provide a reliable digital rendering. One of the real concerns we have is reduction of property values, which can be up to 20% according to the National Association of Realtors. This constitutes a "taking" that of course will trigger a fight. -- Will the project require filling of wetland? Many hours and dollars were spent convincing us that the wetland on our property, the same wetland on the proposed cell tower property, is valuable and should not be disturbed. Is AT&T playing by the same rules or do they have a high spot in there for the tower and don't need to fill in wetland? I cant tell from just an address. -- Where exactly is the site being proposed? That address covers a lot of acreage. Since we have only until the 30th to make a "pleading", we need help fast. THANK YOU. Please feel free to attach a detailed site map to my email address right away if possible, I can answer my own questions maybe and stop needing to inquire with you busy people which would be great. Sincerely, Bonnie Story Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 5 • Bonnie Story Story Board Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 LOG EM �� 33 6