{Converted to html; Hopengarten’s response has been highlighted in green. JM)
From: Austin Osborne
To: Donna Giboney <dgiboney@storeycounty.org>
CC:
Date: Thu, 3/3/2011 12:20:18 PM
Subject: FW: Correspondence Towers
Please file this acknowledgement by Tom's attorney in correspondence. A
________________________________
From: Fred Hopengarten [mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Austin Osborne; 'Tom'
Cc: Bill Maddox; Dean Haymore; Shannon Gardner; K5RC
Subject: RE: Correspondence Towers
-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Osborne [mailto:aosborne@storeycounty.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Tom; hopengarten@post.harvard.edu
Cc: Bill Maddox; Dean Haymore; Shannon Gardner
Subject: Correspondence Towers
Tom,
This piece of correspondence just arrived to our office. Please review the document and feel free call if you have any questions. We expect
that these items may come up at this evening's hearing.
Sincerely,
Austin
________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Meade [mailto:xxx@yyy.zzz]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:53 PM
To: Austin Osborne
Subject: Towers
Mr Osborne
Greetings
My name is Charles Meade I am the owner of the property to the east side of 370 Panamint where the special use permit for towers is proposed. I
have common property line of over 1000'. I have a few concerns over this project.
1 the posabitly of a tower with such a emence hight should fail in any way would land on my property and harm my family or damage my property
it is my understanding that the towers are second hand I hope all welds have been inspected by a third party inspector as code would reciured
all new and old welds . If approved would the county be taking the liability in the event of a failure.
[Hopengarten] Response: Every property owner is concerned about damage to his property, and Mr. Meade's concerns have been addressed.
1. Mr. Taormina also wants structures that will not fail. The proposed structures have been carefully engineered (Mr. Taormina is a
former NASA Quality Control Engineer), the SUP requires a PE wet stamp, and the structures will be inspected by the Building Department -- as with all other structures.
2. Mr. Meade's home is at least 721 feet from the nearest tower. In a severe wind event, all persons are well advised to be indoors, because
trees fall over and branches fly.
3. In accordance with the SUP, Mr. Taormina will be required to continue carrying liability insurance in an amount of at least
$1,000,000.
4. Liability for the County: Under Nevada law, the county has no liability for damage caused by a privately-owned structure that fails,
even if the County has issued permits.
2 I have had my property surveyed I believe the towers guy line bases are encroaching on my property I can not tell if this the case any more
as workers of Toms have removed the survey stakes when installing under ground wires on the property line. Why are the set backs for the 10 acre
VC Highlands not enforced of 15' for the side line.
[Hopengarten] Response--
Encroachment:
After an encroachment on Mr. Meade's land was discovered, Mr. Taormina obtained a survey of the common property line, using rather
sophisticated GPS surveying equipment. The encroachment was removed, the land restored, and Mr. Taormina apologized to Mr. Meade.
Survey stakes:
During the course of restoring the land, after removing an encroaching guy anchor and cable trench, the bobcat driver may have knocked down one metal pole placed by Mr. Meade. But it was not a survey pin. The survey pins are all in place. Shooting boundaries is accomplished easily because there are so many wooden stakes in place and there are NO anchors or wire trenches encroaching on anyone's property.
If there are missing wooden stakes, it would be likely that wind storms have dislodged them, just as they have dislodged many of the precariously placed NO TRESPASSING signs posted by Mr. Meade.
Today there are no encroachments on Mr. Meade's land. Mr. Taormina has apologized for a prior encroachment which was remedied and the land restored. SUP Condition 9 requires the submission of plans, to scale.
Setbacks:
Condition 10 ensures that the County's setback requirements are met. Mr. Meade may not be aware that the setback ordinance 17.40.050, which reads:
The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all structures over six feet in height in the E estates zones.
The guy anchor to which Mr. Meade refers is less than six feet high.
I believe towers should not be permitted to be tall enough to fall on to any other property other than the owner of the towers, also you must
maintain the setbacks for 10 acre property's and require a Nevada survey to check the placement of all parts of the towers and map them on a stamped map recorded at the county.
Please forward on to all thank you.
Charles Meade
380 panamint rd.
xxx@yyy.zzz