AR25-043 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This parcel has previously qualified for a communications facility through AR11 -020 and the site is already developed with the infrastructure necessary to accommodate this project, limiting the intensive engineering that would otherwise occur on an alternative site. The applicants state that the site can support the use because the use already exists and is being replaced. The criterion is met. 2. The proposed facility is locationally dependent. A utility facility is locationally dependent if it must cross land in one or more areas zoned for special agriculture in order to achieve a reasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands; The applicants did not specifically address this criterion but rather addressed MCC 17.137.040(I)(1)(3)(5). The criterion does not apply. 3. Lack of available urban and nonresource lands; The applicants state that reliable communications infrastructure is essential to maintaining public safety coverage and response capability to access this rural portion of Marion County. The intent of this project is to provide efficient emergency response communications to both the urban and rural community, however urban areas tend to have an abundance of urban emergency response services. This facility ensures rural land will receive more efficient coverage, therefore siting it on non-urban land is essential to the use. The criterion is met. 4. Availability of existing right-of-way; This parcel has an existing access easement to the site from Summit Loop SE. The criterion is met. 5. Public health and safety; and This development will improve public health and safety in this region as the proposed development will increase the efficiency of emergency response in this region. Furthermore, the construction of this development will have little impact on the health and safety of persons working and residing in this area. The applicants will be required to obtain building permits, ensuring safety during and after the construction. The criterion is met. 6. Other requirements of state and federal agencies. a. Costs associated with any of the factors listed above may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only consideration in determining that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not be included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar utility facilities and the siting of utility facilities that are not substantially similar. It does not appear that costs were a criterion for placement. The applicants rather addressed the location and the pre-existing communication facility use that makes this parcel suitable for this type of use. The criterion is met. b. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring to its former condition as nearly as possible any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the owner of the utility facility from requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise imposing upon a contractor the responsibility for restoration. The financial arrangements for the development and installation of the utility facilities were not disclosed by the applicants. As a condition of approval, there shall be no cost to adjacent owners. This shall be a condition of approval. The criterion is met. c. The applicant shall address the requirements of MCC 17.137.060(A)(1). MCC 17.137.060(A) (1) reads: 1. The use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Land devoted to farm or forest use