Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters from Appelants for UP17-0002 Appeal January 16, 2018 Don and Joyce Johns 108 Manzanella Ct Oroville Ca 95966 aajohns711@gmail.com) Re Appeal; Conditional Use Permit#UP17-0002 AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility Dear Supervisiors Enclosed are the hard copies of the letters from the appellants. There is one letter from Dan Garcia and Andrea Hubble that was not included in the email I sent. Please include it in your package. There is also a letter from Connie Cueba. She owns the property at 901 Mission Olive and is Alternate#1. Her letter states that she wants the tower on her property. Thank you /' Joyce Jahns 530-589-2894 UP17-0002 Cell tower at 46 Manzanella Ct Oroville January 9, 2018 Dear Board of Supervisors We would like to state our support for moving the cell tower from 46 Manzanella Ct to 901 Mission Olive Road. We would not protest it on that property. We understand that it was Alternate#1. We reside at 841 Mission Olive Rd. We, understand that cell towers are necessary. It is somewhat closer to us but would be screened by trees from us. It seems to us that this site is a better location for everyone and impacts the neighbors the least. Thank u Andrea Hubbell Dan Garcia 841 Mission Olive Road Oroville, CA January 14, 2018 Don and Joyce Johns 108 Manzanella Ct Oroville Ca 95966 aajohns7ll@gmaii.com) Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re Appeal:Conditional Use Permit#UP17-0002 AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility Dear Supervisors We are writing this letter in regards to the appeal of the Telecommunication Facility located on the property at 46 Manzanella Ct. that was approved by the Planning commission on October 26, 2017. We are the full-time residents and homeowners of the neighboring property to the east, 108 Manzanella Ct. We and the other neighbors have appealed this decision.You are hearing this appeal at the Board meeting on January 23. We are the most affected neighbors of the tower in its present approved location. At the planning meeting on October 26th we proposed a new location on the north west corner of that property.All the neighbors were in agreement that this location would be acceptable to them. We were told by AT&T that the homeowners did not want to move it from the original location. Carl Jones, AT&T Agent,said he would lose that site if they were to move it. The best location for the neighborhood is 901 Mission Olive. We have talked to the residents of the alternate site#1 at 901 Mission Olive Road.They want the tower on their property. As you can see by the attached letters that is,the best option for all the neighborhood. It is in taller trees and could be constructed as a monopine. We urge you to uphold our appeal of the approved site at 46 Manzanella Ct. Sincerely Don Joa Joyce Johns January 14,2018 Tyler and Rosa Bagley 11 Manzanella Ct Oroville, CA 95966 Re Appeal: Conditional Use Permit#UP17-0002 AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility Dear Supervisors We are writing to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of the telecommunication facility location at 46 Manzanella Ct. on October 26,2017_ We are the residents of 11 Manzanella Ct. We are opposed to having the facility on the lot adjoining our property. We would prefer the facility to not be in our neighborhood. If the area needs a tower we suggest alternative site#1 at 901 Mission Olive Road. The residents at 901 Mission would like the tower on their property. 901 Mission Olive Road also has tall trees that would help cover the lower 314 of the tower making it a less obtrusive object in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Tyer Bagley Rosa Bagley zt1 .mow UP1.7-0002 January 11,2018 Dear Butte County Board of Supervisors We live at 118 Manzanella Ct. at the east end of Manzanella Ct_ We are opposed to the tower at 46 Manzanella Ct. We understand the need for cell towers. We were informed the residents at 90,1 Mission Olive Road to would like to have the tower. If it is moved to that location it would have no affect on us. We would not oppose it in that location. Thank you lambie Schmidt John Schmidt 118 Manzanella Ct Oroville CA UP17-0002 Cell tower at 46 Manzanella Ct January 10,2018 Dear Board of Supervisors Butte County 1 live at 132 Damon Lane. I am opposed to putting a cell tower in the original location. l was not contacted by AT&T to tell me there was a possibility a cell tower would be built at 46 Manzanella Ct. I understand the homeowners at 901 Mission Olive would like the tower. it would have the least impact on this neighborhood. I was told it was Alternative Site#1. 1 would not oppose it. hank yoy F 1 Dan Turner UP17-0002 Cell tower at 46 Manzanella Ct January 10,2018 Dear Butte County Supervisors I am opposing the proposed cell tower at 46 Manzanella Court. I do not believe it belongs in this type of neighborhood. I believe there are other areas that would be more suitable for a tower of this size. I have heard that the residents of 901 Mission Olive would like to,have the tower on their property. I would not oppose it there. I have known both Don and Joyce Johns, 108 Mianzanella Ct.for many years from the US Forest Service and consider them to be responsible neighbors. I own one half of the property at 132 Damon Lane. Thank you erase Reiniff UP17-0002 Cell Tower, 46 Manzanella Ct. Jan. 10, 2018 Dear Board of Supervisors Everyone understands that we need cell towers. I am opposed to the tower at the current location as approved by the Planning Commission because it affects me. I reside at 116 Damon Lane. I understand the residents of 901 Mission Olive want the tower. If it is moved to this location I will not oppose it. It is far enough away from me to not cause any concern. Thank you Il V ' ussell Shep rd 116 Damon Lane Oroville, CA 95966 UP17-0002, 46 Manzanella Ct. Cell Tower ran 13, 2018 Dear Board of Supervisors I was opposed to the cell tower in the current location.if it is moved to 901 Mission Olive Road I would not be opposed to it It has no effect on me at that location. I would like it to look like a pine tree as I could probably see the top of it. Thank you Jody Elam 3 64 Damon Lane Oroville,EA 95966 UP17-0002 Cell tower at 46 Manzanella Ct Oroville January 9, 2018 Dear Board of Supervisors We would like to state our support for moving the cell tower from 46 Manzanella Ct to 901 Mission Olive Road. We would not protest it on that property. We understand that it was Alternate#1. We reside at 841 Mission Olive Rd. We understand that cell towers are necessary. It is somewhat closer to us but would be screened by trees from us. it seems to us that this site is a better location for everyone and impacts the neighbors the least. an you Andrea Hubbell 'ter` �JC9 Dan Garcia 841 Mission Olive Road Oroville, CA UP17-0002 Cell tower at 46 Manzanella Ct Oroville Jan 10, 2018 Dear Board of Supervisors I reside at 949 Mission Olive Rd. I purchased my home for the unobstructed view of the east foothills and the Sacramento Valley. Constructing the tower in the current approved location is directly in my east view. I understand that cell towers are necessary. It is somewhat closer to me but the location at 901 Mission Olive is good for me. I am the neighbor directly to the south from 901. It would be screened by trees from me. It seems to us that this site is a better location for everyone and impacts the neighbors the least. Thank you COQY Charlee Ann Louis 949 Mission Olive Road Oroville, Ca January 15, 2018 Connie Cueba 901 Mission Olive Road Oroville Ca 95966 Conditional Use Permit#UP17-0002 46 Manzanella Ct Dear Butte County Supervisors I am the homeowner at 901 Mission Olive. I were Alternate#1 on the original filing of the permit. I am writing this letter to let you know that we are willing to have the tower on my property. I understand that the majority of the surrounding residents would accept the tower being on my property_ I have been told you are hearing this appeal at the Board meeting on January 23. It has been awhile since AT&T contacted me about the tower.At the time I said I would like it to look like a tree.The man said to was more expensive. It would be in taller trees and would blend in with them.A monopole is acceptable but I would prefer it to look like a tree. Thank you for your time. Sincerely h C� Connie Cueba