Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence - Remonstrance
Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Fred Yde [fryde1@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:19 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell tower Application in SW Clay First, thanks to the members of the BZA for their work. I do appreciate their collective effort on behalf of the community. As one of the leaders and co-founders of HOAX, I have to re-state the previous statements made by us regarding the American Tower application on Towne Road. We do consider this "exception" as it is called in your domain, a violation of the Settlement Agreement made between the city and the citizens of SW Clay and upheld in the highest court of Indiana. Even though you do not consider it a change, approval of this application changes the nature of the property in question, and that brings up a fundamental element of that agreement. I believe counsel for the BZA is in possession of a letter from our counsel that addresses this specifically. The city administration asked us directly for that opinion and it has properly submitted. We do expect that the agreement will be upheld in you decision. Sincerely, Fred Yde 2/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Mike & Melanie Scheetz [mm@scheetzteamnetwork.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:19 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: pauloliveira@att.net Subject: Docket #08080011 SE section 25.13, 11104 Towne Rd., American Tower Corporation Attachments: American Tower Corporation Market Data.pdf 270 E. Carmel Drive o Carmel, IN 46032 m phone: (317) 814-2100 Mike & Melanie Scheetz Scheetz Team Phone: (31~) 814-2100 Fax: (317) 587-7200 mm~.SeheetzTeam.com www.ScheetzTeam„com View our listings nsA~sorc REALTOR© Connie: Please find attached Market Data we would like on the docket for Monday -for the Docket #08080011 SE section 25.13, 11104 Towne Rd., American Tower Corporation. Thanks, Mike ©2006 Century 21 Real Estate Corporation. CENTURY 21C is a registered trademark licensed to Century 21 Real Estate Corporation. Equal Housing Opportunity. If your home is alrcatly listed, this is not a solicitation. Persona I izeYourEma il.com 2/19/2009 Comparative Market Analysis Property Ty pe: Residential/Condo Status: Active Number of Pro perties: 1 # Mla da e Address Area Bd FB HB legal Gar FP Levl Bas Y8 SgFt 'Opt SgFt LP MU LPJSF DOM t COO! CREEK ~ I t 2LEVL Y 1978 1 080 5M 430 `5267 2 5110 31 1 2903060 0vt8/09 8301ronwood OR 2910 4 2 1 NOPTH _CATC , , , 4 2 f 1978 1.080 2,430 5267,500 5110 31 Mic 4 2 t 1978 1,080 2,430 $267,500 5110 31 Ma:c e 4 2 t 1978 1,080 2.430 5267,600 SttO 31 Averg Propert ~ Type: Residential/Condo Status: Sold Number of Properties: 96 # ML# Clos¢d Address Area Bd FB H8 Lega! Gar FP Levl Bas YB SgFt OpY SgFt MU LP SP SpISF DOM 7 2329392 0821103 1416 Spruce DR 2910 a a t Wedgrxood 3CATC 2 2LEVL Y 1990 1,183 3,728 5484,OM 5474.644 SS27 13 SMOKEY 2 2760089 llI16/07 180" Spruce. Dr 2970 3 2 2 KPJOLL BIOCk 3CATC 2 1LEVL Y 1489 732 2,928 5389:904 5382,900 5131 42 2 Lot 3 2637278 1215 fl06 180' SPRUCE DR 2910 3 2. 2 Smoke Knoll 3CATC 2 5 LEVL Y 1989 732 2.927 3379 900 5375.9Mi 5726 6 4 2555834 70/12/05 790` Spruce DR 2910 4 3 ~ t SMOKEY KNOLL 3CATC I 1 2HALF Y 1969 789 3,a38 5365,000 5365,GM 5706 15 Sh10KEV 5 2554118 Oan7J06 1816 SPRUCE DR 2910 a 3 0 kFJOtt ELK2 3CATC 7 2LEVL Y 7990 7,296 3,5aa 5359,40G 5352.OM 599 144 LC7T 160 6 2324040 07~7i03 1815 SPRUCE DR 2910 4 3 0 f~MC~LL ti 3CATC ~ 1 2LEV! Y 1.990 1.296 3,544 5344900 5339,900 596 54 ? 26702G5 12115106 5 83' Spruce DR 2970 4 2 Y Smbkey Knoll 3CATC 1 2LESP Y 7492 1.747 3,179 5344900 5339,000 StG7 27 8 2225889 OL29102 t85~1 SPRUCE DR 2970 4 2 2 SMOKEY KNCLL 3CATC 2 SLEVL Y 1990 7,534 3,OE8 53449M 5335,500 Strr4 10 9 2657192 12rWJ06 1795 Spruce DR. 2910( 5 4 0 Srrokey Knoll 3CATC 7. 1 2tE3J! Y 1995 1,122 3,910 53u,OM 5328,5M 584 88 t0 236357t 03104!04 181 i SCmce DR 2910 e 3 ~ t SmokeY Knoll 3CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1?91 7.014 3,116 53349M 5328:OM Si05 30 11 281i352 052$108I 1$tiS ruce DR p 2970 4 3 4 SMOKEY KNOLL 3CATC I t 2LEVL Y 1940 1,Ot4 3,066 5339,9M 5327.000 5107 25 SMO!(EY 12 2440454 01r20105 819 Spruce DR 2910 5 3 4 KNOLL 87eck 3CATC t 2LEVL Y 1990 1,000 3,002 53399M 5325,000 5708 122 2 Lat 13 2532459 08/08106 1853 Spruce DR 2910 e 2 1 Smdkey Knoll 3CATC - 1 2LEVL Y 1991 1,095 2.340 53^44:900 5325,000 5139 50 14 2673047 G620i06 541 Iromvoad DR 2910 a 3 0 COOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1976 1.004 2.656 5314.9M 5305,000 St t5 83 15 2333598 07!31!03 779 3 Spruce DR 2910 5 4 0 Smokey Keoli 3CATC t 2LcVL Y 1991 1.122 3,635 5325:OM 530G,W0 583 t0 16 2528508 06!10/05 193%Spruce DR 2910 4 2 7 SMOKEY KNOLL 2CATC 7 2tE`JL Y 1488 t,497 2,960 S3M.OM S3GO,OM 5107 2 17 2124231 07105/01 E04 SPRUCE DR 2910 5 2. 1 SMO'F,E`i K.HOLL 2CATC 1 2LE+R Y 149G 800 2,96a 52E5,OM 52e3,000 595 0 18 2706450 0aJ06JO71 179 Ironwood C7 2910 4 2 1 CCOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1486 1,074 2.910 S265.GOO S2E2.WG 597 37 f9 2742563 07P 0107 1441 Spruce DR 2910 5 2 ` COOL CREEK M 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y ~f980 1 469 2,695 5284:000 5280,000 5104 8 . NORT 20 28t5383 05t09J08 7a2ttronwood Dr 2910 5 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC 7 2LEVL Y t480 554 2.605 527ap00 S277.OM St06 29 W CR NORTH 21 2343297 6fJ05,'04 180i.Spruce DR 2910 a 2 7 Smoke Knoll 3CATC t 2LEVL Y. 1991 795 2408 5279:500 5271.000 5113 91 22 2610732 03/14106 141 i IRONWOOD 2910 5 3 0 COOL CREEK 2CATC t of ~~, _ JL Y 7580 1.082 2,429 5275;900 5266,OM St 10 t DR.1N, NORTH - 23 2666389 12118706 t45i Spruce DR 291 4 y 1 COOL-CREEK 2CATC 2 2LEVL N 1979 0 2,578 $269,M0 5265,OM 5103 22 F10RTH 24 2517073 0429105 5791ronwood CT 2910 4 2 1 Cooi Creek 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 1986 1,014 2?t0 5264.900 5264,900 591 1 NortF. 25 2626682 07t03lC6 1404 Spruce DR 2910 S 3 1 Ccal'Creek 2CATC 1 2LEV! Y 5980 7,425 2,599 526a,9M 5287,9M 599 20 n¢rin 26 2607355 08FIEf06 951 IRONWOOD 2970 4 2. t COOL CREEK 2CATC t ~"eLE`P Y S9iB 870 2,350 5259,500 5250.OG0 5505 154 DR NORT:-! 27 ZM8569 05Jt21M 7806 SPRUCE DR 2900 4 2 1 SMOK'cY 1GUOLL 3CATC 1 2tr°VL Y 1991 795 2,408 5254,9M 5241 ^00 5103 15 28 2223734 0723102 1413 E$PRUCE 2950 4 ~ 2 t COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 4986 1,682 2.745 5254,4G0 52»5.000 589 28 DP NORTH 29 2430054 06ti104 1447 Spruce DR 2450 4 2 1 Coel Creek 2CATC 2LF/i Y 0980 0 2,695 5252,400 5245.OM i Sgt 0 30 2222460 08!02102 5r~ IRON~NOOD 2910 5 3 0 COOL CP.EEK ZCATC t 2lEVt Y 1976 1.004 2,601 5246,9M 5243.500 594 7fi pR NORTH 3t 2224043 0624/02 13S35PRUCE DR 2970 a 2 ,~ ~ COOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC s 'eLEVL Y 1981 7.059 2,370 5249.900 52x3,000 5103 2a 32 2026123 0825100 1413 E SPRUCE 2910 .4 2 j COOL CREEK 2CATC. t 2LEVL Y 4980 800 2,745 52a490U 5240 500 S&E 35 DR NORTH 332122182 W8310t DP, 2 910 a 2 ~ i. NORTH 2 CATC ~ i 2 LEVL Y 1 97E 0 3.7455 244.9005 240,000( 564 6 4227 Irornvoo0 Dr 2 910 4 2 1 COOL CREEK 2 CATC i 2 LEVL Y 7 979 7 ,064 2,504 5 244.900 5 240.000 596 50 34 2 638037 0 8114!06 W NORTH 35 2425928 0685tQ4 722 u Ironwood CT 2910 a 2 7 Cool Creek 4 CATC t 2 LEVL Y 1 975 832 2,651 5239,900 5 239,900 590 3 Nafit 36 24264 6 06f04?04 1382 Spruce DR 2910 4 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LE`fL Y" 1979 682 2.351 5239.900 5239,900 5102 2 3 NOP.TH 479 RONWOOD 2910 e 2 t COOLCREEK 2CATC 7 2LEVL Y 1986 1,014 2.910 5244,900 5239,004 582 5 37 22512x1 72117102 CT NORTH ' - COOL CREEK 38 2671694 02143/07 1201 Spruce DR 2910 a 3 0 NOP.T'H Block 2CATC t TRILV Y I9EC 784 2,416 5248.000 5238,OG0 b49 63 ib 39 2551728 10r14N5 830 ronwood DR 2470 < 2 t Gaol Creek 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 5978 1,080 2 440 5239.900 5234,900 395 28 Nonh 412 06!28102 173 RONVJOOD 2910 4 2 1 COOL CREEx 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1986 1.000 3,?44 5233,000 5233,000 573 t5 4Q 2223 CT NORTH 4 7 2248445 02/07103 1465 5PRUCEOR 2910 4 2 t COOL CREEK 2CATC 2 2!EV! h! 1979 0 2578 5239,900 5232.5M 590 56 NORTH 42 2232012 12ti81Q2 49695pRUCE DR 2910 4 2 -7 SMOKEY 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1587 586. 2.695 5249,900 5231,000 SE6 134 KNOLL 43 2250227 02774703 726 IRONWOOD 2910 a ? 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 7978 960 2,408 5229,900 5229,900 595 78 DR NORTH 44 2a 75523 05/05/04 735 Ironwood DR 2910 5 3 0 Coal Greek 2CATC 1 2LEVL ' Y 1580 1,215 2.477 5224,5CQ 5226,500 594 6 , North Bik 15 45 2649562 72105!06 t4875prtice DR 2970 4 3 p Cool Creek North 2CATC 7 MUL71 N 1979 0 2.416 5237,9QG 5225.400 553 105 46 2424337 06175104 57-0 Ironwood DR 2910 a ? i Cool Creek 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 7575 2.560 5224.900 5224,000 588 12 North a7 2148976 52142101 9231RONWOOD 2976 4 3 - 0 COOL CREEK 2GATG t 1HALF Y 19E0 896 2.68& 5225;900 5227.550 582 14 DR NORTH 48 2411587 05!05104 119_'Cottomrood CT 2910 4 ? 1 COOL GREEK NOR ~ r: Elack 2CATC 1 2! EV! Y 1483 - 1,253 2,440 5225,000 5221,SOQ 591 45 14 49 2246070 05130103 14235PRUCE DR 2970 a 2 }' COOL CREEK 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 7980 728 2,34E 5224,900 5220,000 594 182 NoRrH 50 2347400 1726:03 7a2~? IronwoodDR 2910 4 2 1 Coa! Creek 2~ATG t 2LEN Y 1980 992 2;268 522x,900 5220OW 597 5a Norh 51 2767473 43!04108 91 P ahwood Ct 2910 4 2 1 COCLCREEK . , - 2GATG 1 2LEVL Y 1979 704 2.098 5228,OOti 5248;5 5104 132 OR T1 ! h 52 2141276 092&OS 13711RONWOOD 2910 4 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC 7 2LEV! Y 1980 1.008 2,372 - 5214,900 5247.500. 592 74 DR NORTH 53 270705a Oa134f07 1661ronwood CT 2910 a 2 1 Coal Creek 2CATC 7 2LEVL N i 57E Q 2,282 5229.940 5275.500 594 58 North 54 2330954 07/37/03 517 Ironwood OR 2910 a 3. 0 Goof Greek Nortt: 2CATC 1 TRILV Y 7976 840 2.982 5209.900 5215,000 572 6 55 2627720 0985/05 1337 W1ranwoatl 2510 4 2 2 Cool Creek 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 7980 641 2.374 5229,999 5215.400 591 128 pR North 56 2223008 ' 09119102 9x5-IRONWOOD ~ 2910 3 2 1 000! CREEK 2CATC 1 2LE`A Y 1979 1100 2.426 5224,900 5274,750 189 94 DR NORTH 57 2203425 n5f02 9861RONWOOD 2910 4 2 i COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 4980 0 2.674 5215 700 521x;000 580 37 NORTH 58 2361033 02816(04 2181RONWOOD 2910 4 3 0 COOL CREEK ~ 2GATG it 2LEVL Y 7975 1,000 2,368 5274,900 5212,900 594 53 bRE N JRT7i 54 2006845 0488f00 1x04 SPRUCE DR 2910 5 3 t 000L CP.EEK 2CATC t 2LEVL. Y 7981 4,100 2,600 3224'.400 $210,000 581 23 NORTH 60 20327 69 10130/00 1 224 SPRUCE DR 2910 4 2 } COOL CREEK 2CATC 5 2LEVL Y 1980 1,085 2,356 5272,500 5214,000 589 56 ~~ NORTH 61 2213578 07;t5t02 1337 W 2810 4 2 2 COOL CREEK 2CATC 4 2LEVL Y 19E0 1:0x0 2:374 5214.900 's2t0,000 588 83 ' 1RCNWOOD DR NORTH 62 2114552 05/01101 9451RONWDOD 2910 3 12 1 COO! CREEK 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1975 1.100 2.426 82419.900 5249.900 5$7 ? pR NORTH " - - - - COOt GREEK, 63 2358744 01119/04 8301ronwood DR 2970 4 2 1 NORTH Block.. 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y 7978 7;080 2,430 5274,900 524'+,G00 5,36 57 70 64 2841429 0848108 288 ronwood CI 2970 4 2 7 COOL.CREEK 2CATC t. 2LEVL Y 7476 994 2,175 5210.000 5206,500 . 595 24 ,.. .,..._.. _ NORTH 65 2552532 Wt56102 225:ElRONWOOD - ~ 2410 4 2 1 COOCCREEK 2CATC_ 1 2LEVL Y 1976 960 2;202 5210,009 5205.000 593 73 DR. NOR7Y.. 66 2465624 04f04/05 1513 SPRUCE CT 2910 a p ', y COOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC 1 2LEVL N 1980 0 2,694 5209.900 - 520.3,000 575 73 67 2233627 09/12102 1.15?i CO-FfONWOOD 2510 4 2 7 COOL CREEK 2CATC - 0 2LEVL N 1983 p 2,55 . 7 5209;900 5202.000 579 a0 NORTH CT 6 62158766 05Y307G 782.. SPRUCEDR ~ 291 0'4 2 1 SMOKEY ,,.~.,~ 2CAYC 1 2LEVL Y 799 01.15 22,66 05259,50 05200.00 0 575 5 t 27E 4 2 t COOL GRE'cK 24ATC I 7 2LE'/L Y 1983 1.252 2.308 5205.904 52OO00G 587 154 69 2227640 7223102 COTTOMWOOp 2910 NORTH 1 CT 125E a 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LEVL 't 1983 842 2.e38 5199.900 5758,000 581 at 70 22x6618 12i09.~02 COTTONWOOD 2910 NORTH C7 i 17c 1 a 3 0 COOL CREEK 2CATC t TR7lV t' t 983 450 2,357 5200,004 5196,500 583 91 77 2045532 0329i0t COTTONWOOD 29 0 NORTH CT 936 RONWOOD 2910 a 2 i COOL CP.EEK 2CATC t 2LEVL N 1980 0 2 J27 5195.000 5155 000 s„u 918 72 22x8850 05117x05 DR NORTH 383 0227!44 713 ronwood DR 2910 4 2 1 J Creek 2CATC i ZLEVL Y 1976 1,089 2,367 5204.500 5795,000 582 167 73 2344 7101 02!10106 409 romvood Dr N 2910 4 2 t COOL CREEK 3CATC 1 2LEVL Y 1976 532 2.33a 5159.900 5195.400 584 88 7a 256 : NORTH N 1RCNWOOD 2910 4 2 7 COOL CREEK 3CATC t 2LEVL Y 157E 504 2.334 St97 500 5194 500 584 110 75 2234774 iJJ12/02 DP NOP.TH 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC 7 2LEVL N 1980 0 284 2 5200.000 5793,0401 585 1 f 76 24096 7 9 032910a 12x7 SPRUCE DR 2510 a 2 NORT"H , 77 9932987 11/45/99 CO7TOPN/00D 2910 a 3 0 COOL CP.EEK NORTH 2CATC t TfitLV Y 1983 889 5146.500 5190,000 SN4 17 CT 971 3 D1 12 28 57 t N IRONWOOD 2470 x 3 0 COOL CREEK 2CATC t MUlT7 Y 1 4875 840 2,982 5185 x00 5187.000 553 13d 78 21 1 r . OR NOR T 1'' 74 2044549 45104/41 " 1 `"' CO`TON'NOOD 2910 a 2 1 COOL CR'e EY, 2CATC i TRILV f{ !983 0 2.254 5189,900 57E6000 582 i27 NORTr? CT SECT30 i'VP BO 2034118 t2N1/00 1241 SPRUCE OR 2910 a 2 1 t6 Ra PlT 2CATC 7 2LEt4. PJ 1980 0 2384 5189.9M 518x,500 SSt 74 2t0 81 2860691 1 tf25108 738' Spruce DR 29101 4 2 t ~Cr`-ek ~ 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 1979 662 2,351 5190 D04 5583,673 578 27 o 82 202627"s 01!12101 146 i SPRUCE DR 2910 a 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC 2 2LEVL N 1979 0 2,578 5743.90G 5181.500 570 175 NORTH 83 2044926 D6R410t 1a815PRU0E DP. 2910 41 3 0 COOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC 1 MULTf H 1974 0 2p 16 5189.900 5175.000 574 i5c" 84 250347a 0425/05 tax lromvood CT 2910 4 2 i CCpr Creek 2CATC ~ 5 I MU! Ti Y 1576 576 2,116 5184904 5176,SGG 583 725 Plorh 85 2554087 I0422J06 358 Ironwood OR 2910 4 2 ~ ' Coe7 Creek 2CATC 17 MUL71 Y 1976 500 2,004 5179,950 5176.500 588 290 PJCgt: 86 2025529 0&D4/40 15i 3 SPRUCE CT 2910 4 2 ' COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2LEVL ) H 1580 0 2 442 5775,000 5775.040 572 t8 NOP.TH dd Dr 5561 2910 4 2 ' COOL CREEK 2CATC ' t TRILV N 7976 0 2.176 5179,400 5173.500 580 85 87 2830732 09!05108 ronwo NORTH 88 2x215?'+ ONC91C4 1504 SPRUCE DF 29}D 4 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC i ~ 7LEVt N 7980 0 2,252 5169.400 5772A00 476 3 7 PRUCE DR 2910 4 2 ; COOL CREEK 2CATC t I2lEVL M 5980 G 2.432 5171,900 5168,540 569 a5 89 2136970 10/72/01 12 1 S hCRTH 50 20228 7 7 08/22;00 31F-0NN1000 CT 2910 4 2 t COOL CR cK 2CATC t 2LEVL Y 1976 480 2, 178 SS"09,900 3165,900 576 62 91 2355657 G2tQ6/0a DR W Ironwood 2910 3 2 2 Cocl Creek 2CATC t 1LEVL Y 1980 514 2054 5179,900 5165,000 580 94 North 2 004085 0324/CO ta4.IROPJWOOD 2910 4 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC t MU! TI Y 1976 0 2.689 576x,900 515x,900 561 t3 9 2 CT P70RTH 93 202x311 10!30/00 8327ROMNOOD 2910 a 2. 5 i REEK T N~ 2CATC 1 2LEVL M 4978 0 2,224 5159,900 5162,000 573 87 R F 9a 2022018 0820x00 8231ROP1WOOD 2910 4 2 t COOL CREEK 2CATC 1 ilE'A. N 1980 0 2,161 8169,900 5750.000 S7a 66 DP NORTH 95 2841865 ;125/08 (x72 trpnwoad Dr N 2910 a 2 0 COOL CREEK NORTH 2CATC t 2LEVL M t576 0 2,594 5159,940 5536,000 552 89 j 96 2364680 02/12104 397 Ironwood DR 2970 5 ~ ' Ceai Creek 2CATC 2LEVL Y 1979 la1 2,292 5255,900 43 50 25 PJOtth Mim. 3 2 1 (- ( 1975 450 889 5154,904 5536,000 552 1 ', Maz 5 4 2 ( ( 1492 1,534 3,950 548x,000 547x,644 5214 918 Avers 1e ~ 4 2 1 7982 443 2,586 5243.690 5236.454 592 68 Information deemed RELIABLE but not Guaranteed Copyright; ~ MIBOR 200$ All Rights Reserved Search Criteria Area 2910 Status ACT ,SOLD , PEND 'Sheet Name ~conta JnS ccttonvroW ,spruce . ironwooC ~ResidentlallContlo,-RES Search ~~ ~ Sirb~Q4 , ~. [te . `a , ~a..a __' ~~ ~___ ~t i`o'j~~:,~~c cs G T 9 M1ticrosof[„ ,_ Viifual Earth' L' aX Listings ~ ~ ~~ 1 2124231 ~ 803 SPRUCE DR 2 2122182 ~~ 97`3 IRONWOOD DR 3 2671884 ~~ 12)1 Spruce DR 4 2148976 ~ g73 IRONWOOD DR 5 2411581. ~ 1132 Cottonwood CT 6 2114952 ] 945 IRONWOOD DR 7 2233627 '~ 1151 COTTONWOOD CT 8 2227640 ~ 1276 COTTONWOOD CT 9 2118166 ~ 823 SPRUCE DR 10 2246678 ~ 1258 COTTONWOOD CT 11 2248850 i~ ggg IRONWOOD DR 12 9932987 ~ 1174 COTTONWOOD CT 13 2044649 `~ 1156 COTTONWOOD CT Address ~~ Spruce Dr 0 m c 150;yds _ O 2006 btinascn Cerpuaittn Status Lisi Price SOLD 285,Q00 SOLD 244,904 SOLD 248,000 SOLD 224,900 SOLD 225,000 SOLD 209,900 SOLD 209,900 SOLD 205,900 SOLD 259,900 SOLD 199,900 SOLD 195.000 SOLD 196.900 SOLD 189,900 Sold Price 283,000 240:000 238,000 221,550 221.500 209,900 202,000 zQO.ooo 200,000 198.000 195.000 190,000 1$6.000 Comparative Market Analysis Property Type: Residential/Condo Status: Sold Numtrer of Properties: 13 SgFt SgFt LP SP SP?SF DOM Area Bd FB H8 legal Gar FP Levl Bas YB Opt MU d ress # ML# Closed Ad SMOKEY 2CATC 1 2LEVL Y t990 E00 2,96.7 $205.000 5283,OGT5 595 0 1 2124237 07?05105 8095PRUCE DR 2910 5 1 2 i KNOLL 0723?01 979 RONWOOD 2910 4 2 t COOL CP.EEK TH 2CATC I 1 2! EVL Y 7978 0 3,745 5244.900 5240.000 554 6 2 2722182 DR NOR 3 2671884 02/13107 12G1 Spruce DR 2970 4 3 0 COOL CREEP, 0RTH Bfock N 2CATC i TRIVJ Y 1980 784 ZA16 5248.000 5278.000 599 63 6 973 RONWOOD 2910 4 3 0 COOL CREEK 2CATC 1 iHAlF Y 1900 896 2.688 5224.900 5217.550 582 t4 4 2148976 i2?i2?Oi DR NORTH [ 05105104 ~T'COttOnwood 2510 a 2 } COOL CREEK NORTHB~ock 2CATC 1 2LEVL '! 5983 1,253 2 440 5225,000 5221,500 591 a5 5 241158 t4 945 IRONWOOD 2970 3 2 1 COOL CRE'cK 2CATC 1 2!EVL 'i 7979 1,100 2,426 5209.500 5205.900 587 7 6 2514552 05/07101 DR NORTH t 15' COOL CREEK 2CATC 0 , 2L'c JL N 1983 0 2.557 5209,900 ~ 52G_,000 575 4 7 2233627 09l12t02 COTTONWOOD 2410 4 2 1 NORTH CT 9 0 4 2 1 SMOKEY 2CATC i 2LEVL Y 1990 t,t52 2,660 5259,506 5200.000 575 5 8 21 i816o 05/30/01 825 SPRUCE OR 2 7 KNO!L 727 o - 0 a 2 1 COOL CREEK 2CATC t 2!"cVl Y 7983 1,252 2,308 n- o 52_0 _00 5200.000 587 754 9 2227640 1283!02 fONWOOD CO 291 N~pTH CT 1253 4 2 i COO! GREEK 2CATC t 2! EV! Y 7983 842 2 a38 ~5199.500 5196.000 581 41 10 2246678 ~72t05?G2 CO~OMNOOD 2910 NORTH ~ C7 11 2248850 I05117i05 °z61RONW00D OR 2010 a 2 i 1 C00! CREEK NOR i H 2CATC 1 2LEV` N 1980 0 2,327 5195.000 5195.000 584 918 72 993298'+ t 1f05/95 1779 COTTTONWOOD 2910 4 3 0 COOL CREEK NOR i H 2CATC I TRILV Y 1583 889 5756,900 SiSG.CC0 ~5214 !! 17 ~~ ~, CT I t320445»905fC4i01ICPfTON'NOOD X510 4 2 ! ~~RT4 REEK 2CATC ` iRl!`! R 1583 0 2,26d f5789900 II 5t86.000 582 127 CT 3 2 1 t 1978 784 889 5189,900 5186,000 564 5 Min 5 3 1 i 1990 1,253 3.745 $286.D00 5283,000 5214 918 Mar 1983 1 010 2 471 5222,700 521a,227 i 594 12D Average 4 2 1 , , Information deemed RELIABLE trut not Guaranteed Copyright: ~ MIBOR 2008 All Rignts Reserved Search Criteria Area 2970 Status ACT ,SOLD . PEND Street Name contains celionweotl ,spruce , itonwded Re5ldentiallCond° RES Search Prepared By= Wednesday. Fetrruary 78. 2GL9 Page 1 of 2 Tingley, Connie S From: Elizabeth and Dan Philpott [dan.ebiephilpott@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:31 AM To: Brainard, James C Cc: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Letter regarding proposed cell tower on Towne Road February 17, 2009 Elizabeth Philpott 2016 Burning Tree Lane Carmel, IN 46032 Mayor Brainard Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, In 46032 Dear Mayor Brainard: I would like to let you know that as a home owner in the Crooked Stick neighborhood off of Towne Road I am concerned about the proposed cell tower directly across from my neighborhood and north of Towne Meadow Elementary School. I have two concerns regarding the location of the tower which are property value and the way the Department of Community Services is approaching this matter. My first point I would like to make is the decrease in properly value that could arise from this tower's location. The basic fear of health concerns and the way the current economy is going could damage property values to adjacent homes and neighborhoods. Also, this tower is being proposed to be constructed and remain on the property for twenty years and only 65 feet away from a 4-acre residential properly. The tower could negatively impact our residential area when there are possibly better locations that have been identified. If the cell tower is allowed, it could lead to more rezoning of the area in future. The second point I would like to make is that at the Board of Zoning Appeals meetings there have been discussions about alternative sites in the area that would not require a special variance for the location of a cell tower. I strongly request that the Department of Community Services investigate all of these alternative sites. I would like to be sure that the Department of Community Services is doing enough to help oiir community to locate the best site in the area as this cell tower is not an "emergency". I appreciate your time, and I hope you share our concerns that the proposed site is not the best or only location for the proposed cell tower. Respectfully, Elizabeth Philpott 2/18/2009 Page 2 of 2 cc: BOZA, DOGS ~n onnnn Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Henry & Andrea Leopold [ha185@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:10 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: cell tower proposal We are homeowners in Huntington Chase. We feel very perplexed over this cell tower proposal. We are extremely concerned about our property value decreasing with such a structure nearby. Why should it be that way as we purposely planned the purchase of our home around carefully looking at the zoning in the area and considering what others would like to have if they purchased a home in our subdivision. We hope and wish that you do not let this happen. There are many other areas that a cell tower of this sort can be placed as not to affect property values. We have worked very hard to afford and maintain our home in and around this area. We not only are active in Huntington Chase, but are active participants in the parks and education in the area. These are all assets that help our property values. We can assure you that this Cell tower will not help with our property value. Please help us preserve our hard work and assets. We appreciate your consideration and efforts in not allowing this to occur on Towne Road next to Towne Meadow Elementary school. Sincerely, Andrea and Henry Leopold 11451 Sutton Place Dr. E. Carmel, IN 46032 317-582-0052 2/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Matt Rydell [mattrydell@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:08 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Town Road Communication Tower Dear Connie, I am a resident of the Huntington Chase sub-division. I am concerned that the proposed communication tower on Town Road will have a negative impact on my property value. There are plenty of other suitable sites in the area that are available without having to make variances to the zoning that is already in place. Sincerely, Matthew E. Rydell 11589 Sutton Place Drive East Carmel, IN 46032 2/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Henry Leopold [ha185@att.netj Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:49 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: cell Tower Connie, Let it be know that We Andrea and I are apposed to the cell Tower on Towne Rd. at 11500 Street. Henry Leopold Huntington Chase Home Owner 2/18/2009 Tingley, Connie S From: Cory M. Herendeen [cory.herendeen@crowehonvath.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:16 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower at 11104 Towne Rd. To whom it may concern- My wife and I own the property at 11106 Towne Road. Our 4 acre lot is the home and land adjacent to the north side of the property line of the proposed cell phone tower site at 11104 Towne Road. As our home is attached to the proposed site, we are extremely concerned about the cell tower greatly reducing our property value as well as ruining the asthenic view from property. After talking with multiple realtors and resources, we believe a cell phone tower next to our home will reduce our property value between 15 to 20 percent. With already reduced home values in the area, this could further depress home prices in the West Clay area. ...: ., : ....,,....... While the cell phone tower may add a-small amount of revenueto our area, the reduction in home values will be a much larger reduction than what this additional revenue from a cell phone tower will add. Also, our swimming pool, guest home and main home will be only approximately 300 to 400 feet from a very large cell tower at the proposed site. This, of course, causes additional concern to us because if there we an accident with the tower and it was to fall on our property, it could cause the many large trees on our property to destroy any of our structures. Since the proposed site is less than 100 feet from our property, destruction during construction or while in operation is a great possibility. Lastly, as a healthcare consultant for many large hospital groups in the United States;:;and someone who works with medical research on a daily basis, I believe there may also be healthcare concerns living next to a cell tower over time. .With hundreds of children a very short distance away at Towne_Elementary School, the risk of.health;concerns_with a celltower.this close to a school with small children should be alsoincluded as a reason against this residential lot as a cell tower site. In summary, with many alternate sites to choose from, including somewhich could add revenue for the Carmel Parks Department or other nonprofit local entities and not reduce residential values, Iybelieve the 11104 TownY Road site is spoor choicepPorpa`cell phone~~ tower. There are man sites in the West Cla area which are much more a ro rrate fore this type of development. I ask the board to please vote against the 11104 Towne Road residential lot as afuture cell phone tower site. Best regards, Cory , Cory Herendeen, MBA, CPA Crowe HOrwath LLP 3815 River Crossing Parkway Suite 300 P.O. Box 40977 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240-0977 Email: Cory.Herendeen~crowehorwath.com www.crowehorwath.com Office: (317) 706-2781 Fax: (317) 706-2660 Cell: (317) 727-4659 UNDER U.S. TREASURY RULES ISSUED in 2005, Crowe must inform you that any advice in this 1 communication to you was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid any government penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer. This message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not make any use of, or rely in any way on, this information, and you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. Any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions in any applicable client engagement letter or service agreement. 2 TO Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals FROM : Bob Ware RE Communications Tower FOR February 23, 2009 Meeting ~~~~~~ '._ FED i .;~ ~. ~~CS 1. REBUTTAL FOR LAST BZA MEETING (01/26/09) a. not to make a profit i. AMT Shares ii. Towne Elementary Schoo) Trust (a/k/a "TEST") b. attractive nuisance -not anything else 2. HOW TO GIVE COMFORT TO OPPONENTS OF ANNEXATION OR AVOID IT a. give a special exception on top of a variance best place for tower -safety of children b. no chance for T.M.E.S. teachers to appear before you -OR- ask high city official to a-mail teachers of recision of school board policy and invite teachers to next BZA meeting c. ignore faulty Affidavit attached to Application -OR- ask for correction d. ignore lack of transparency of Application and exhibits -OR- ask for further information relationship of AMT to owners 3. TWO REASONS WHY APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED a. no gaps and no creditable evidence presented to prove there are gaps i. FCC employee opinions and double-hearsay evidence ii. evidence presented there are no gaps among others -Vince, Dee, Elizabeth, Bret iii. no engineer said there were gaps 1. no logs 2. no customers b. very damaging to property values in Crooked Stick West (CSW) neighborhood -zero damage to time on market for example concerning ] 0840 Tam O'Shanter Drive - 20M to 42M loss of value, fny~ qualifications to make this claim a. five years associated with mortgage lending b. five personal residences -four sold c. four investment properties including Old Library in Westfield d. author of monthly article in national magazine for thirty-one years e. author of three books f. past president of CSW Homeowners Association sewers, water, and gas services brought into CSW under my administration g. attorney for two real estate development situations CSW -two "extreme" makeovers -many substantial improvements Thank you for your service to Carmel. ©Robert C. Ware ROBERT C. WARE 10840 Tam O Shanter Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 February 13, 2009 Mr. James D. Taiclet, Jr. Chief Executive Officer AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION 116 Huntington Avenue, 11`h Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02 ] 16 Re: Proposed Tower Location, 11104 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana Dear Mr. Taiclet: With respect to one of my investments, Costco, the CEO travels to his various sites. If you are of the same persuasion, I invite you to come to Carmel, Indiana [o view the site of AMT's proposed tower next to Towne Meadow Elementary School ("TMES"). AMT knows there are other suitable sites available for the tower, and I have been told AMT will not consider them unless or until your application for the tower at ] 1104 Towne Road has been turned down by the Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"). If you visited the site you may agree the tower needs to go elsewhere. Circulating around Carmel, Indiana is a 1998 article called "Rationale for Negligible Risk Exemption in the Telecommunications Act of 1996" In this article, Table I characteristics listed are no longer applicable due to vastly increased usage. The evidence presented in the article is based upon a six minute per day exposure to an adult male. If you obtain approval and build a tower next to our school, our children will receive an exposure approximately six hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year plus playground exposure. Section 704 (a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1996 makes it clear the BZA cannot consider radio frequency emissions in making its decision whether or not to allow a tower next to TMES. However. you and I can take notice of the possible danger to our growing young children. 1 ask you to consider the health of our children in making a decision to build a tower at 11104 Towne Road. Please consider conducting an intemet search of the phrase "cell phone radiation" as a starting point for AMT's update concerning the emerging science about "non-ionizing sound waves." Carmel's own expert about tower placement recommended not to place a tower next to a school. Because BZA cannot consider the effects of radio frequency emissions, opponents of a tower next to a school must talk about harm to property values and/or gaps in communications coverage. 1 believe my home value will decrease anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand dollars. There are about two hundred fifty homes involved. Some of them are worth over one million dollars. By petition, over ninety percent of these homes have opposed the cell tower. By representation, all three presidents of the neighborhood associations involved have appeared before the BZA to oppose the tower site. Many individuals have also personally appeared. Knowing the above, knowing there are other available sites for AMT's tower, it appeazs AMT deliberately seeks to interfere with the economic advantage of the affected homeowners. As an investor in AMT shares, I am interested in your success and ask you to consider a foreseeable risk by your intended conduct. Since my December 4, 2008, letter [o you, I have created the Towne Elementary School Trust (a/k/a "TEST"). Contributors to TEST are asked to consider purchase of AMT shares, and upon compliance with SEC rules, one activity will be to make sure other AMT stockholders are aware of your policy of building towers near schools especially where they are not wanted. The favor of a reply is requested. Very Truly Yours, Robert C. Ware cc: Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals American Tower Corporation Boazd of Directors, Individually Opposition Leaders Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: kmscottconsult@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 1:00 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Zoning of cell towers Connie: I happen to own a home with family directly across from the proposed cell tower on Towne Road. I have extreme reservations in having the Board of Zoning approve this request. We treasure our view and believe strongly that it adds to the value of our home. Approval of this zoning will certainly result in the devaluing of our home and in this economic . climate this is not what we need. Once approved we run the risk of that entire azea on the west of Towne Road to become commercialized. This is a residential azea with schools and parks. Commercial areas are within a short distance and we do not need to allow for an opportunity for our residential area to become a commercial zone. So, this isn't about one project, it is about a door opening to other potential commercial interests. We happen to be very thoughtfid in Carmel in creating an aesthetically pleasing community. A need by cell companies to build towers is understandable, but I don't believe we have identified the correct location for these towers. Place them in an already existing commercial area and not in a residential area. I travel out of town each week and will not be able to attend the next meeting on this and thus trust that you will respect our position and vote a No for this proposal. Thank you very much. Kazen Scott 11354 Royal Place A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps 2/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Andrea Frazier [acfrazier@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:53 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell tower 116th/Towne Road In regard to the cell tower which you are contemplating being constructed in the area of 116th and Towne Road I must disagree with the commercial appraiser who said this would not adversely effect the other residential properties in the area. I am a retired real estate broker/salesperson (since Dec. 2008) and I have seen many properties adversely effected by such things as cell towers, high tension power lines, etc. The properties generally sell for less than other comparable properties with such things in the neighborhoods. The properties also sit on the market much longer unless they are underpriced to start with. I have sold real estate in Hamilton and Marion (and surrounding counties) Counties for 25 years working most of that time with Century 21 Realty Group I located at Clearwater Crossing on the north side and a cell tower will definitely have an adverse effect on the neighborhood values. As stated I have recently retired from. real estate but was ask to give my opinion of the current situation. Andrea Frazier Retired Broker/Salesperson Century 21 Realty Group I, Inc. acfrazier.@ co mcast_n et 2/16/2009 Page 1 of 2 Tingley, Connie S From: cgparkin@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 2:38 PM To: ~ Tingley, Connie S Cc: cgparkin@aol.com Subject: Comments on Cell Tower Impact Study TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This email is in response to the recent study regarding the impact of the proposed wireless communication facilities on property values, prepared by Amanda Woodall, AW Group LLC. I have carefully reviewed the report and find several flaws, including the methodology used, lack of relevant data and erroneous conclusions. As a medical writer and consultant to both pharmaceutical companies and medical associations, I spend much of my time analyzing and reporting research data. And while real estate is certainly not my specialty, I am well-versed in the methods and rules of basic research. Please allow me to elucidate my concerns regarding the study. Inappropriate Methodology To understand the significance of this weakness it is important to reiterate the question driving the study: Do cell towers impact property values? To answer questions such as this, you need to use a "compazative" study design. In other words, you need a "control group" for comparison. For example, in pharmaceutical studies designed to test the efficacy of a given drug in treating infection, one must divide the study subjects into two groups: Group A gets the new drug; Group B gets a placebo (no drug). At the end of the study, the statisticians determines how the drug impacted the cure rate in Group A subjects as compared to the cure rate in Group B subjects. For example, if 80% of the Group A subjects were infection-free within 5 days, but only 20% of Group B subjects were infection free at 5 days, this would prove that the new drug was effective. Wit bout the control group, however, you could not draw this conclusion. If you only tested the drug in one group, you could not determine if it was the drug that cured the infection, or if it was simply that the infection ran its course and was cured by the body's own immune system. Studies that look at only one group use a "longitudinal" design, looking at what is happening in a specific group over time. Although longitudinal studies are useful in identifying trends, they are totally inappropriate for looking at the impact of interventions. Unfortunately, Ms. Woodall used a longitudinal design in her study. Lack of Relevant Data In her report, Ms. Woodall only provided data on what happened to property prices in neighborhoods where a cell tower was constructed, comparing property prices from one year to the next. She did not provide data about property price increases in neighborhoods that were not proximate to cell towers. Again, this stems from her use of a longitudinal study design. Thus, we have no way of knowing whether the percentage increases in property prices within the cell tower study areas were in line with percentage increases in non-affected neighbor hoods. I also find it disturbing that no data regarding recent property prices in the affected neighborhoods were presented. Surely; this information is readily available to real estate professionals. Given the sharp decline in property prices over the past 2 years, one must ask whether omission of these data was intentional or simply an oversight. Erroneous Conclusions The study concludes that "the value of residential properties with a view or near proximity of a cell tower or radio tower is not adversely impacted by the presence of such towers." Given the inappropriate methodology and incomplete data, it is impossible to draw this conclusion; we cannot assess the impact of something without some form of a control group for comparison. In fact, if one were to accept the "logic" of 2/16/2009 Page 2 of 2 the study's conclusions, why not say that cell towers actually increase pro perty prices? Afterall, the data do show a steady increase in home prices in the affected neighborhoods. This would be an equally ridiculous conclusion; one that is unsubstantiated by the data presented. I'm very skeptical of the objectivity of Ms. Woodall and her client. The City of Carmel BZA and residents who will be affected by the proposed cell tower should be skeptical, as well. For example, the study conclusions further state: The data available concluded this was true for: • Number of days on the Market. • Overall sales price when compared to other properties not in the prosimih~ of a cell tower or radio tower. Repeat sales of residences in the proximity of a tower. Residential lot valuation. The statement highlighted (red boldface) has not been substantiated; there are no data included in the report that even address this point. The study provides no comparisons whatsoever. In summary, the study is significantly flawed in=2 Oits design and methodology, incomplete data set and invalid conclusions. I can appreciate American Tower Corporation's need for profit. However, I believe that this is misleading "research" being used to persuade the City of Carmel and its residents to award a Special Exception and Variance to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless communication facility on an inappropriate site. Common sense tells us that damaging the aesthetic quality of a community with the construction of a cell tower will likely negatively impact property values. The study conducted by Ms. Woodall and her client, American Tower Corporation, provides no evidence to prove otherwise. If the decision is to be based on the study report, then the Carmel BZA- should refuse to grant the request. Thank you for your consideration of this letter; I hope my analysis of the study is helpful to you in making your decision. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or issues regarding these comments. My very best regards, Christopher Pazkin, MS 11360 Royal Court Carmel, IN 46032 317-848-6214 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! 2/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Debbie Zancanaro [dkzkiddoc1 @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 6:09 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: dkzkiddocl@hotmail.com Subject: cell tower on Towne Road Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, My husband and I own the property immediately west of the proposed site for the cell tower installation at about 12000 Towne Road. As the owners of this property we stand to see a considerable financial loss of property value. We had' a signed purchase agreement with earnest money committed to sell this 3 acres to a well qualified buyer for the amount of $480,000 last spring. This sale was blocked by the owners of the land that is now to be leased to the cellular tower company; the purchaser made a written offer to also purchase that land (for more than $135K/acre, but the exact price is unknown to us) for use in building a family estate. We contend that the construction of this tower will make our land unsellable and therefore worthless. This is not a theoretical loss but an actual loss of almost half a million dollars. You at the very minimum will have to admit that it would never again be sellable at that price and therefore we will be suffering very signinficant financial loss. Please take into account that the developer of Bella Terra directly across from the cell tower will also find it much more difficult to sell his remaining lots. There is also considerable money being invested in the rehab of the home directly north of the proposed cell tower where there was previously an eyesore involved in criminal activity. These people will also lose considerable potential profit. Please consider the impact that your decision will have on all of our futures. There are other more appropriate sites available and a decision in favor of this tower will directly affect our property values. This is within your purview to prevent. Sincerely, Debra K. Zancanaro 11240 Towne Road Carmel, IN 46032 873-6763 See how Windows Mobile brings your life together-at home, work, or on the go. See Now 2/16/2009 •~b: 13Zp, Frz DM: 'w%b W/~R1= d1-/~N. 'Z 7..c~o9 ~ O PPO~..~1TiON TyC~ ~ CEi~I. iO~L J<1'~ ~~ tlloµ loi.~; nSE nn KC~t~~ L ~1'TRAG~Tt~lt NvIStkNCE 4 I~css~r3a_.c- INUZ,r ©r~ D~r~rH to N C~t1t_D w~~o LVC~Ut,lj Wa~zJ'T `rc Eti.r~~7rZE `tr4E si~E. OR •iZE'fR~eVE, Pc $ALI. .~,, GR>=aT£s qty EI~I+'t" t~crcE "I+bLi_" IN q~y ~-) IhREA•. N (-~l^Jl.~ is trice L~f "i"'~ EXnt}av~ 3, C~ ~~ i+e ~ SITE s ~v~ 1 ~~, 6-~e w>+ERE GL LL/'~TERl4l- ~A-m~~-E i a ~SZOpE2Tj' V~L.UES 1`s I..E.55 )„lK~L`t. G~. `:CX t~la1..,L, ~Jart:.DEu 1~l+ttk' ~i$ cC~L2.~a Ct:~ lt(e ~h ~ icr•~+~n-12. ~Q.. u, ~E~i ph-Rk ~ llfi~' ~ ~:N~ Re~r~b C. OLD ~1RE STRYIOTI /hT il(o}I`~+ `e-~7~J.IE ~L"R-~ OI., Wit: W )=iRE" 571's~'1(7M1! /~T 7Ub~ ~' SHEI..BOiJJl~,lK ~. 13$fs Z~veG~s ~•~,~ cc . 1.1E Grr-vr~a•~, c~ ~I~ `~ ~r ~ 1 T c{I Q Q A 1,) }~, ~ E. c~-i,~'~R,,, cr~ J ~h~'Y' i#t i ty-w~,.ix, toe. c.~. ~Y, GC>-.L Y~i-MNE R(~W>=t2 ~} )=1lERY WI+EIl~ u~l~r+t~v c7nIC tHl~c o~ Ilio4. ic:,w`ryt 12r.aD- 1HE'~.~ 1S Pl.t~ ~>11E~fT£NCY $ DlrninllSit~~ )_,6SE OF iowrtc MEa~Uc„I ~1,~M>;NTi~2Y Sol}-ooL. EXPEG~ 1~L (~VES'~'S >=orZ Vo uc.r+ir/25~ CAnma:r's ocvu ~~ ~~T~2tCen~m~N~c7~~ !`Jo GL L1 7oWE.~ NEXT To A ~Gtloc'lL,, ~. N ~ ~'y PL, v s P ~ ~c s~ c~ hbt~nE O c.aw a:1~ 9 N iv'~~ 'r o 1 t i o4 ~ ~ w jv-t 20 Its 1-1-AYE A~K£D ~.ftRME ~. r! c~ i 7~ ~-'-a 1~.~ ~ i . ~:, ~ •~--~r~ C,iF2t~ E L Sc I-},Do 1. 73b1~nl~ f e U ~Y ~l..r~ A-c- i ~ a 1~ ~~~ r, ~ '•i ~ Uz z ~ .n ~ f1,t . E , S, T~ ~c_~ E!Z S ~' fir. ~r~~~', ~,~.~~ ~~.,_ g `~ 11-E t,T£tZ s Ke c.,TE..Z'' /~P~ 2o1ke.1-} ~ ~ [ E ~ S t?7J= Ar"LL, ;. ,, ^ •, ,; ; ,., g~l~~ ~~~7`~kYoU ~'c~rc~ Ye~ur~ ~NSla~~s~rlor~ ~oaYr+~ ~~.o~r~ ~ -, R~C~I~IED To: BZA members (L'~5 ;~ { ~;~,e From: Dee and David Fox, 11389 Royal Ct., Carmel RE: Towne Rd. Communications Tower (11104 Towne Rd.) ~ ~~?~~ January 20, 2009 \ ~ Regarding the BZA's efforts to determine tower necessity and whether the petitioner had exhausted other site possibilities-- ALTERNATIVE SITES: 1. Per DOGS, the petitioner does not intend to look into the other site possibilities, UNLESS THE TOWNE RD. SITE IS DENIED FIRST. 2. The Dad's Club is interested, contacted DOCS, and waited a month not hearing from the tower company, until DOGS recently informed them of the above stance. The site north of West Park, (p:etitioner's 1st choice), has several advantgges over the Towne Rd. site. 3. Per DOGS, University High School may be reconsidering. Has the synagogue on 116th St. been asked? 4. The DOCS appears to believe that considering other sites is merely trading one group of angry residents for another. However, the public expects more diligent efforts to aid the petitioner in finding a site that least adversely affects the fewest number of residents. PROOF OF NEED TO COVER SOME GAPS INSIDE BUILDINGS: 1. The petitioner will supply its own coverage-gap test results, for only one carrier. (Per DOGS, carriers will not accept results from neutral third-party testing). 2. Per wireless planning consultant, * Cities should not accept applications from tower companies (nbt FCC licensed): only from carriers. * The FCC does not requi.Y~e seamless coverage. * RF maps and test patterns do not prove a tower needs to be at the exact requested location or height. NEW CONCERNS: 1. HEIGHT--The application (120' tower) should be for the true intended height (150'). Lower heights aid approval odds, 4rhich then eases adding more height later. (Six intended carriers should equate to 140'. Why the extra 10'?~) 2. SETBACK VARIANCE--Reduction of setback requirements for a 120' tower from 220' to only 65' is excessive. Once the tower grows to 150', (250' setback requi'r~ed), the 65' setback cannot be adjusted for the extra 30' height. If a 65' setback is acceptable, a tower could be put on any 130' x 130' lot, (0.4 acre), setting a very undesirable .precedent. 3. OVERSIGHT/CONTROL AFTER APPROVAL--Per DOCS, the tower just needs a building permit. Then, the City's ability to monitor the enclosed compound is only as good as the tower company's willingness to volunteer information about changes, additions, other carriers, and operations. Enforcement amounts to nominal fees. CONCLUSION: The petitioner will not give more appropriate site possibilities a chance, unless the Towne Rd. site is denied. Good reasons for denial have been cited by many. The requested zoning exceptions/variances & likely adverse consequences are too great. Tingley, Connie S From: tom moretto [thomas.moretto@sbcglobal.nef] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:07 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: cell tower on towne road Louise A. Moretto 11246 Towne Road Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Connie and the BZA Members, My family and I live adjacent to the property that abuts the proposed cellular-tower conglomerate. Before I began teaching at ISBVI (Indiana School for the Blind and Visually Impaired,) Z was your proverbial fanatical volunteer. I volunteered two decades for the CCC, WCC and HCCVB (Chambers of Commerce and Visitor's Bureau respectively) as committee chairs, board members, and even "Member of the Year". The endless hours of toiling were a labor- of love and to help strengthen our Hamilton County communities,-,-,Carmel,,.,,.n ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~ particular. It was n~'t for the ~p laques, certificates, or seats at the head table; but rather to solidify Carmel. Tosee the national cellular entities barge into our community and defile our residential areas ~is unconscionable! They 'are doing it, not because they believe in Carmel, but to MAKE A BUCK. It would be at the cost of our school children and our peaceful and prideful neighborhoods. Ourneighborhoods are respectfully appealing to you to rely on our founders instincts to ]seep,the land zoned...residential. Thank you! Sincerely, Louise A. Moretto & Dr. Tom Moretto 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: cgparkin@aol.com Sent: Monday, January t 9, 2009 4:53 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: CGPARKIN@aol.com Subject: NO VOTE on the proposed cell tower To Whom It May Concern: As a homeowner in the Huntington Chase subdivision, I strongly oppose the construction of a 150-foot (or even 120- foot) cell tower on property adjacent to Township Line Road. We have already seen enough construction of housing and roads in our area -- all of which was in direct contradiction to the zoning plan established years ago. While I am concerned about the aesthetics and impact on property values associated with the project, I am also very concerned about the potential health risks associated with the project. Although some organizations dismiss these risks because the radiofrequency (RF) signals used with digital cell phone use arenot powerful enough to create the "thermal effect" that is clearly associated with cell damage, there is considerable controversy about the health hazards of low intensity exposure. Many internatidnally acknowledged experts in the field of RF research have shown that RF of the type used in digital cellular anfennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the radiation was too low to cause heating. Because no conclusive findings regarding cell tower safety have been established, I believe it is irresponsible to ignore the,potential.health hazards associated with iY, particularly since the tower will be constructed so' close to the=elementary school. ~,,, Given the potentiate health hazards, along with aesthetic denegration and further property devalutations, it is clearahat the benefits of the tower project (which are questionble, at best) in no way justify the risks. Thus, 1 question the wisdom (or motivations) of those who insist on moving this project forward; not only the company, but the governmental authorities who,have prohibited any discussion ofthe health risks within the confines of public hearing. Please consider this our sincere vote of "NO" on the tower construction. We have done well with our current cell phone coverage. There is no reason to jeapordize public health or environmental aesthetics simply to allow a very few people some added convenience. And, I feel no responsibility to ensure the future profitability of the American Tower-~=~ Company: Most .Sincerely, Christopher and; Christy Parkin 11360 Royal Court Cannel, IN 46032 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Aliove. See yours in just 2 easy steps!. '' " 1/20/2009 7' r~ To: BZA members ~~ y~~"` From: Dee and David Fox, 11389 Royal Ct., Carmel ~ ;+,- RE: Towne Rd. Communications Tower (11104 Towne Rd~d.) Docket #08080011 SE, 08080014 V',. '~ November 18, 2008 Please deny a Special Exception and Variance for this proposed cell tower location. It does not comply with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (21.04.02), and there are better alternatives in both technology and location. (The DOCS has a tape of Ted Kreines' Wireless Planning Workshop, presented on 11-13-08). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (21.04.02): 1. "The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community ... * The debate over health effects of radio frequency non- ionizing radiation is long, widespread, heated, and inconclusive. However, many 'reputable-sources/studies cite strong evidence of risks, especially to children. The public perceives the tower emissions as dangerous. Until proven safe, it seems sensible to err on the side of caution. Towne Meadow Elementary ball fields abut the proposed tower property. If approved, some parents plan to move their children to private schools. Mr. Kreines stated that public schools should be "avoidance areas" for towers. *~ Mr. Kreines explained that setback requirements from property lines/buildings guard against falling ice shards, and tower failure due to tornadoes or earthquakes. Cell sites have generators and fuel tanks. There have been instances of battery sulfuric acid leaks into groundwater, and of explosive hydrogen gas buildup .in poorly vented equipment shelters. * Young children may not read warning signs. * The public considers towers to be eyesores that adversely affect property values. The tower and equipment would be clearly visible from Towne Rd. (see photo 1). The "natural screening" trees on parts of the lot are bare in the winter and are not necessarily permanent. The "vacant" house to the north is not likely to remain vacant. 2. "The use and value of the area adjacent to the premises ... will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner." * The current owners of 11104 Towne Rd. bought the homesite at a low price, failed to sell at their desired price, and do not live on the property. A setback variance would allow the lucrative tower lease area to be closer to adjacent properties, thereby leaving more of the original lot for further development. A zoning exception for the tower would most likely enable rezoning of the remaining property for more profitable development than single- family detached residential. Surrounding homeowners (and the BZA) are under no obligation to enable personal business ventures. * Area residents are very concerned that the granting of a zoning exception for a utility site on thus residential property would likely lead to future undesirable development nearby (utilityZcommercial/higher density). (See photo 2). Since large- lot homeowners prefer not to live near a cell tower, the owners of each successive adjacent "compromised" property G;,i )~ likely seek rezones in order to sell. z. * A tower would harm the values of Kings Mill homes behind it, and of Huntington Chase and Crooked Stick homes along Towne Rd. The Lakeside Park development on 141st St.~ built next to an existing tower, is full of houses except for several con- spicuously bare homesites nearer to the tower that are still unsold. (See photo 3). 3. "The need for the Special Exception arises from the applicant's responsibility to provide utility service ... * The burden of proof is on the petitioner that this service is needed. Some area residents have no coverage problems; some have limited "dead spots". It depends on the carrier. The tower companies and carriers compete, rather than cooperate to best serve areas. The applicant's information and coverage maps are for Sprint Nextel only, so the map doesn'.t show all existing towers. Information on other carriers' tower locations, ranges, and coverage holes would be helpful. 4. "It will constitute.an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the Special Exception is denied ... * For 6 years, the tower company has been denied sites in this area, such as West Park (its first choice), Crooked Stick Golf Course, University High School, and private properties. These entities could just say "No". Having,;now found an invest- ment property owner who sought the lease money, surrounding homeowners do not have th@_option to just say "No". Must they get this tower by default? The Kreines Wireless Workshop made clear that there are alternate equipment and location possibilities. The applicant could be part of such a Wireless Master Plan, but tower companies prefer large towers because they are big moneymakers. 5. "The approval of the Special Exception does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan, in that there are no alternative sites suitable ... * The purpose of planning is to find the best fit for the right area. The S-1 all-residential zoning in this area_was to protect large-lot homeowners from such industrial-type uses. Both the 2020 Plan and the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan support and preserve this area's zoning. City Council enacted the 116th St. Over-lay to protect it from nonresidential uses, and has acted before to keep such uses from locating directly on Towne Rd. * The applicant has not proven that "there are no alternative sites suitable". The proposed site is simply the path of least resistance and most revenue. There are no towers shown along U.S. 421, a much more suitable location that might offer more than the proposed 2 mile range. The Wireless Planning Workshop informed that technology changes will soon require more cell site closer together, making large towers unsustainable. Wireless facilities do not have to be big towers. Wireless facilities can be much lower, disguised on buildings, in bell towers or steeples, in trees, on utility poles, etc. No nearby towers on which to collocate equipment does not mean the proposed location is the only option. 3. Another consideration raised by Mr. Kreines was that tower equipment often multiplies after the original petition is approved. This application is for a 120' tower with rental space for 4 carriers. Three or four outdoor equipment boxes per carrier would surround it. (Each 3' X 2' X 6' tall, and not in a disguised shelter building). Foundations are built to hold more capacity than approved. The applicant plans to ask for a 140' tower height to accommodate 6 carriers. Carmel government is realizing that this cell tower applica- tion is just the beginning of a line forming at its door, and that the tower companies have the advantage. The City needs to have a Wireless Master Plan "with teeth", and to work with utilities to find wireless sites that least impact existing homeowners. Mr. Kreines claims such a plan could be accomplished in 3 to 6 months, with staff :support. Please do not allow a zoning exception on the Towne Rd. site before a plan is in place. PHOTO 1: View of proposed cell tower site clearly visible from Towne Rd. Existing garage will be removed. 4. TOP PHOTO 2: Crowncastle cell tower and utility equipment at 635 W. 131st St. Hence, the "eyesore" label. BOTTOM PHOTO 3: Lakeside Park vacant homesites near American Tower cell tower at 2525 W. 141st St. The tower sits farther off the lower right corner of the photo. 1. To: BZA members From: Dee and David Fox, 11389 Royal Ct., Carmel RE: Towne Rd. Communications Tower (11104 Towne Rd.) December 4, 2008 THE PUBLIC STARTS AT A DISADVANTAGE: Tower companies have a considerable advantage in legal repre.= sentation, time, funding, and power to pre-empt some local rights. The hodgepodge of competing networks makes sorting out actual needs very difficult. Official public notification consisted of notice to 5 homeowners and a vague roadside sign. Residents have had limited time to try to notify hundreds of affected homeowners, sort through large quantities of complex information, and pull together a defense of their properties and families. At a normally "one-shot" hearing, residents' initial defense can be countered by the practiced petitioner, but the public is not allowed to respond or take part in ensuing discussions. NEVERTHELESS, THE BZA DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY THIS TOWER SITE: * The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that "nothing in the act shall limit or affect the authority of a state or local government over decisions regarding the placement, con- struction, or modification of personal wireless facilities." * As specified in a previous letter, this application does not comply with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, "Special Exceptions". * This is not a question of an overall community need for infra- structure trumping the negative effects on a few people. Nor is it a question of banning cell towers. It is a question of putting forth real effort to find the most appropriate site that would impact the least number of people, would not be next to an elementary school, and would not threaten adjoining land uses. The tower company and the City are not likely to expend the time, effort, or money to do so, unless the BZA compels them to. SITE ALTERNATIVES: * The wireless planning consultant stated that tower companies often pronounce that alternatives to what's in their best interest just "won't work". Thank you for seeking proof. We will not get what's best for Carmel residents unless you insist on it. RF maps and test patterns do not prove that a tower must be located in the exact location proposed. * The petitioner-.stated that they "can't force people to rent to us". That's true, but they could work harder with those who might be willing under the right circumstances. When I asked ghat the problem was with locating in their first choice, West Park, the petitioner said that it was too hard to get through the bureaucracy. The Parks Dept., However, apparently received ho specific proposal that would try to address its initial concerns raised about aesthetics. * I've heard there could be some interest from the synagogue on 116th St., or the Dad's Cluh (fields north of West Park). 2. IF UNABLE TO DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION: Please place all of the restrictions in your power to protect surrounding homeowners. If the property owners want the tower revenue at the expense of everyone else in the area, then they should directly bear as much of the impact as possible. 1. Deny the setback "Variance" request. This variance would serve only to financially benefit the property owners by maximizing the size of their remaining investment property. That would unfairly come at the expense of adjacent landowners. The tower should be inside the lot as far as possible. If the petitioner cannot work with the minimum requiZged setback from residential property lines, (150' for a 150' tower), then this was not a viable site to begin with. 2. Protect our low-density residential zoning. Please state in writing that this approval is not intended as a step toward rezoning the remaining property, and that any such request would be looked upon unfavorably. This would aid the Plan Commission in denying an almost certain future rezone request. It might also reduce the likelihood of a rezoning "domino effect" to high density or nonresidential uses on neighboring properties along Towne Road. 3. Establish as much City control over future modifications as possible. Once approved for the minimum requested, wireless facilities often expand. Later changes have included adding ground equipment, height, or lighting, adding or changing frequencies, making pacts with other companies to use the site, and neglecting grounds upkeep. Once built, only the FCC can shut the tower down. .Can the City require that all changes come back to the City for approval?? There was mention at the Hearing of reviewing the site and technology every few years. Does the City have that option? Does it have enforcement powers? If better technology became available, wouldn't the tower still be "grandfathered"? near a cell tower is certainly not what 'r ere. We thought at the current zoning would provide protec Please do what you can. Thanks. /'~~ 4~ e c~ : ms C~-,.,,,,,..~.;,,~y_ Dn.~:tc-w (+a-emeA ~. mom: m r c,~as~ P, l~i.-t-~v, ~~•li ~~r~ / "t ~~. `f o u 2 ~ z Poser -i C 13z.A a.l;-awt 'I~f~.z, ~e-C'e ~Y3 c~ Ti.~w-¢_~, a~,`i"cwv~.e~ \:C._ ~le..t.1. ~.te.,Ly ~. °~e-rv'~ez Mann..' G2t2trcs~']R¢.CAt ~cl.. tNrc 1?:ZC:.v W"1.a~2W ""1 ~1'v~MrS ~"Cl~c tJgnd ~ W~1~' ~~•~" 1 heu., I.UU~~.-.~i ona_ ..u-~.xb,.~,c-~ t~,.rA av'~-ck. 'Y~~. o-~-o-..~, ~. ~,fVVic` 7enrer" ~-..e~- 1'r-r~- fv-e.. c¢-vw~.,,.no~sf are- 10+..+~.c, ~~, .~ Wcat~.+L ~:..y.rw ~c Cc-n.o_c a~.R~. '~-c ~ b'lf Sb~.c~i,"aa.e n+t,{~ •~x~-,,_y,,, tz-/'"~''~~~Z.w= ~.u- /~n;... {Zu,(~c~:LJOVt>awt--ll-t;,o Fncv~ti ~" ~ ~antwwa,~.vl ~.fcr y.a~c q 82.y 4.+vrv~.~^-~~y . 8 Z A d.G~.e~-wE,o. tc 'I~0-a.ti E(ts,m ~-~,t, ere-o+v~- '~{ncaQ'.'JJ et'~ e~.c.,-++.; . f~~Qy_seAe, V f..vn.oa..~k~~..~e>~"'..-wv,~ eta ~. Q Zip ~-~ ~ cLca.~ve,i, ~ ~~.~..~ '~'`°~ ~vLu '~-~a.e..~¢n, °~1 T m ~ 5 ~i-e e~p~sca¢~, 4/rtc,~ i Cv~%a.,~ t~. tN-~v 46'0 ~ vt~.a~-~ CLr,. a,~.IL.e.~.1Xa -~$'ta~. ~fs~.e c~d- -~+.~aTa ft~,~,z- gwid-~.~t~ t~~ac~ lOt 5.tiw ~cv-~. 11 ~7.µ~efs (il=Pr~lL7'a .£..-P~'7o-Q' ~,~:.u-•..D_e- c~...z.ee•~.,;T~. S~tn.a ~d~nC. 40- ru-eP..C. ..;w y~-~r.,,~~nw'O9 R~Po,AT, i .~-Yw1x. n.c~e. l'hat c~,zw.cw, cu~v~,au~ ~o~rt CE ~-o7ir,{. caw. l~~+rc. ~'~"~d~ ~c1,~-a.~.ai a ~......E~-f.~.c: -'~3LCt, rn. ~ S-l~'oq. yrrw s-Iw-.t.Pel. et...o.~tLa-l. a eLue.c....,.v g-Z. p, 'tom rt_¢.- tom`"~c 1,.e~w~c¢ CIS m ~ ~~ Il ~+i c.z ~_ Aw=2. ~`~ a~-.E,u~.a.Tx ~-e. n. crx,o.~ir~.~e~rcra..~ir.ca„~Rc;.~ -hn.a, ~-euan- pa",ti.letcL, ~{ .H.,,,z. /~n,~z L... mQ •~_ Ec rns_ ~14\nGt ,W.a_ ct.ryryfa' c.u-i_C .'.A ~.r+~q ~,sr.,~-o-1cl..•wtxl. tc-xe.'v„uutuv~ ~Qn.~;. r9. ~w.-~ ,p~~ a. '7'o,-w:ERJ L,.¢u"vod e.s-w~:>-nn-~ cZrz 4. tlaq,f' ~. ~w r,.t.G.a~a~-• ~. ICnou; ~~-a~n~iav, w,.LL ~fi«.~.~ u-rvto-s, to ~"RSI.a..nk. Cc-u-nX. ~- cam..=r,e., h.ws~, Uw-eo~tM . Gtk--k.~=w ~W~q St vl.c tn-e~L 11v.-v:v .-,-~ CijL(~.caw-Fn~'L~,'Cc }J~t,NN~%A'19 r~~ Cann ~ct. ,n,,iytaJ'~atc~cnaf` C_Frw.'L` A~-w. q_ u. c~,e. t~(v~c~T' y V u~tnM-ew*' CGn'1 1,~'C-- G.vvv~~c~ ~cr V~'~-emu 1'V~weZ.. _~-~V y'tc-a_c.~..a o~. vriE [7.,n Lig'LQ.¢ [ai~w~. -~ ~+-t~a,zi- -~-L~.z c-~~ ~,.~ f~...w+ 6-•--,_a.!.a... ~-~,rc,~,.~i,~.t-w.-a+~.,t +k~zn-s... pn.r. .. fl~.t....u-n-~R..'L_~+~rzd G--c.u.- y}~ ~ .fat-~X3.. "~> Cs~tn, ~p ~t.t.o. c-c+~la~i+-..,~~ . n_~-elr-a~_ r,Lo wit , _ ---- --__ - -T!'~.-wig Robert C. Warz 10840 Tam O Sbantzr Dr. f~ ~~JGV~~~-_- Cannel,IN46032 James R. Parker 11368 Royal Circle Carmel, !N 46032-8699 04-December-2008 To: Board of Zoning Appeals Commission Re: Proposed Towne Road Cell Tower & Other Rezoning Issues Dear Board Member, Thank you for continuing to be impartial regarding the proposition to rezone a section of land off of Towne Road for a proposed cell tower location. I live in the Huntington Chase subdivision which is a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed location and 1 have serious reservations about the construction of the proposed tower. My chief concern is in regards to this rezoning request opening the door for other rezoning opportunities which would turn the parcels of land along Towne Road into something other than S 1 zoning. [know the Comprehensive Plan for Western Clay Township is already being reviewed with substantial changes being considered. Among them, is a proposal to rezone the current S 1 sections to SS sections and adding several areas for commercial real estate. As a home owner in the area, I am opposed to this rezoning. One of the major reasons I selected the neighborhood I now live in is due to the low density housing in the surrounding area. I work in an area that is HIGHLY commercialized along i-69 and 96`h street. The traffic is horrendous and the stress from all the congestion and lack of natural beauty is something I must endure but don't necessarily want. Therefore, it's a pleasure for me to escape this madness every night and retreat to the serenity of my neighborhood with llama farnrs, horse farms, and higher value homes. Having another unnecessary shopping center or other light industry center adjacent to my neighborhood certainly would disrupt the current oasis that I'm enjoying. At the BZA meeting on 24-November-2008, a number of alternative sights were suggested. Among them was the now vacant fire station at 1 16`h & Towne, West Park, and even Towne Meadow elementary. I'm not overly excited about the park or school options but the old fire station location certainly seems like it could be neutral ground for everyone concerned. I'd also propose speaking to the new Greek Orthodox congregation at ] 06°i and Shelbourne Road. Their dome steep may present on opportunity for a discrete antenna array and provide them with a source of income for the very expensive building that was recently constructed. I'd also suggest looking at the clock towers at Coxhill Gardens. Again, there's an opposite to install discrete antennas in structures that already exist. In closing, let me say that I'm not yet sold on the "need" for a cell tower in this area. I have AT&T as a cell carrier and my reception seems fine. So my ultimate suggestion is to deny the petitioner's request to install a new tower. Thank you for allow me to voice my concerns and recommendations. Home Phone: 317.873.9610 ~~arlrer~indi~.rr.com Tingley, Connie S From: jrparker@indy.rr.com Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:37 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower Rezoning Attachments: Cell tower.doc Cell_towecdoc (37 KB) Please pass the attached letter to the aZA committee members. Thank you 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Fred Yde [fryde@lightbound.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:25 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell tower application on Towne Rd Hello to the BZA of the City of Carmel! I would like to remind this board that an extremely important agreement was made a few years ago to settle the differences in the Annexation Issue between the City of Carmel and the property owners of SW Clay Twp. I will refer you to Article 9 of that agreement which states that "prior to Jan 1,2012 zoning changes in the Annexation Territory should not be permitted". The American Tower application that is being considered by the BZA would violate this article, and it would be considered a grievous violation by the property owners in the near vicinity of the site. I trust the BZA would not want to chance the real possibility of violating this agreement. I realize there is also a•good possibility that members of the BZA do not know what is in that agreement that could affect their decisions going forward, so I will invite them to avail themselves of a copy at their earliest convenience and read through it. Thank-you and Sincerely yours, Fred Yde ,. .. ,: ~ ,. ,,: .. _ ,~ ;.,. 12/4/2008 To: BZA members From: Dee and David Fox, 11389 Royal Ct., Carmel RE: Towne Rd. Communications Tower (11109 Towne Rd.) December 4, 2006 ~_ ~~'~~~ I'~~" _~" l D~~S THE PUBLIC STARTS AT A DISADVANTAGE: ~ --" Tower companies have a considerable advantage in legal repre= sentation, time, funding, and power to pre-empt some local rights. The hodgepodge of competing networks makes sorting out actual needs very difficult. Official public notification consisted of notice to 5 homeowners and a vague roadside sign. Residents have had limited time to try to notify hundreds of affected homeowners, sort through large quantities of complex information, and pull together a defense of their properties and familibs. At a normally "one-shot" hearing, residents' initial defense can be countered by the practiced petitioner, but the public is not allowed to respond or take part in ensuing discussions. NEVERTHELESS, THE BZA DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY THIS TOWER SITE: * The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that "nothing in the act shall limit or affect the authority of a state or local government over decisions regarding the placement, con- struction, or modification of personal wireless facilities." * As specified in a previous letter, this application does not comply with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, "Special Exceptions". * This is not a question of an overall community need for infra- structure trumping the negative effects on a few people. Nor is it a question of banning cell towers. It is a question of putting forth real effort to find the most appropriate site that would impact the least number of people, would not be next to an elementary school, and would not threaten adjoining land uses. The tower company and the City are not likely to expend the time, effort, or money to do so, unless the BZA compels them to. SITE ALTERNATIVES: * The wireless planning consultant stated that tower companies often pronounce that alternatives to what's in their best interest just "won't work". Thank you for seeking proof. We will not get what's best for Carmel residents unless you insist on it. RF maps and test patterns do not prove that a tower must be located in the exact location proposed. * The petitioner-.stated that they "can't force people to rent to us". That's true, but they could work harder with those who might be willing under the right circumstances. When I asked ~ljet the problem was with locating in their first choice, West Park, the petitioner said that it was too hard to get through the bureaucracy. The Parks Dept., However, apparently received no specific proposal that would try to address its initial concerns raised about aesthetics. * I've heard there could be some interest from the synagogue on 116th St., or the Dad's Club (fields north of West Park). s 2. IF UNABLE TO DENY SPECIAL EXCEP`1'ION: Please place all of the restrictions in your power to protect surrounding homeowners. If the property owners want the tower revenue at the expense of everyone else in the area, then they should directly bear as much of the impact as possible.- 1. Deny the setback "Variance" request. This variance would serve only to financially benefit the property owners by maximizing the size of their remaining investment property. That would unfairly come at the expense of adjacent landowners. The tower should be inside the lot as far as possible. If the petitioner cannot work with the minimum requiYled setback from residential property lines, (150' for a 150' tower), then this was not a viable site to begin with. 2. Protect our low-density residential zoning. Please state in writing that this approval is not intended as a step toward rezoning the remaining property, and that any such request would be looked upon unfavorably. This would aid the Plan Commission in denying an almost certain future rezone request. It might also reduce the likelihood of a rezoning "domino effect" to high density or nonresidential uses on neighboring properties along Towne Road. 3. Establish as much City control over future modifications as possible. Once approved for the minimum requested, wireless facilities often expand. Later changes have included adding ground equipment, height, or lighting, adding or changing frequencies, making pacts with other companies to use the site, and neglecting grounds upkeep. Once built, only the FCC can shut the tower down. Can the City require that all changes come back to the City for approval?? There was mention at the Hearing of reviewing the site and technology every few years. Does the City have that option? Does it have enforcement powers? If better technology became available, wouldn't the tower still be "grandfathered"? awing to live-near a cell tower is certainly not what residents ver expected when they invested in their homes here. We thought hat the current zoning would provide protection. Please do what you can. Thanks. December 4, 2008 To: Connie S. Tingley From: Robert C. Ware Dear Ms. Tingley y ~ -~ 1J£C -~ Z~„ t~~ Please provide me with a copy ofthe recording ofthe November 24, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting. I need the copy to prepare for my participation in the December 15, 2008 Meeting. I agree to pay the cost of reproduction of the recording and will come to your office to pick it up and pay you in cash or check if you prefer. Thank You g~~-4-a~1 lJ ~~~ Cam' - g ~, g -~L2--~-~. is ~ ~~ ~~~~_ % ~ ~ ~~,. - TOBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN RE AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION, APPLICAN ~"~~" MOTION Comes now Robert C. Ware and moves the Board of Zoning Appeals to table any further action on its part with respect to granting a variance at its December 15, 2008 meeting which would approve American Tower Corporation to construct a communications tower on property commonly known as 11104 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. In Support thereof I have filed a STATEMENT OF FACT AND CONTENTIONS Respectfully submitted Robert C. Ware, Attorney 30 East Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317)575-3382 Courtesy Copy hand delivered to John Molitor, Counsel for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 11~®1~~~°tt ~ ~~r~°~ Attorney At Law 30 East Main Sfreet Carmel, IN 46032' Mr. Jim Taicet, C.E.O. American Towei• Corporation 116 Huntington Avenue Boston, Ma 02116 December 4, 2008 Dear Mr. Taicet: I am a recent purchaser of AMT stock. I live in Carmel Indiana which has been described in a National magazine as one of the ten best places in America [o raise a family. I want to keep it that way and that's why I'm writing [o you. Enclosed is a November statement which Pat; my' wife; and [filed with the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) about our opposition to AMT erecting a communications tower adjacent to Towne Elementary School and about three hundred feet from the playing field used by many children in our area. -In 1964, in Miami, Florida; [became aware ofjust how much effort goes into a highly secret project to acquire real estate. The project used about three hundred twenty six "strawmen" some of whom engaged in transactions with each other and other lawful activities appropriate to concealment. It is now known as DISNEY WORLD: You may be very frustrated having to deal~with your strategic goal of placement of a communications tower in our area. L would be pleased to help you attain this goal quickly. I know how [o do it and where [he alternate site location maybe. At [he Carmel BZA meeting November24;.2008 the Cannel City Planners recommended to approve your application to place [he tower nett to the school: Some employees of the Cannel school system'con[enil their civil rights have been violated because they were not allowed to appear at the BZA 11 /24/08 me8ling to oppose the tower location. Some parents are considering removal of [heir children from Town Elementary School if [he BZA approves your ' application on December 15, 2008. Others, like rrie, feel surrounded on two sides; (1) the Carmel City Administrations approval of your"application and (2) ATC'sdesire to "get on".with the towec'We do not know whafelse to do, other than activate lawful action, suchas SEC rules allowing us to communicate with other ATC stockholders, and, the Federal, Constitution, to obtain a remedy. Or, as one American generalpu[ i[ `when surrounded on two sides attack in both directions'. The next BZA meeting is December 15, 2008. I have filed a MOTION~asking a decision-on your application to place a tower about 300 feet from a school playground be."tabled". The motion is supported by my December STATEMENT, also filed with BZA: Please help us, by agreeing to this MOTION: We need more time to find a placeTor the tower acceptable to both of us. - - Sincerely, Robert C. Ware STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TABLE ACTION ON A PROPOSED ~ VARIANCE BY AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION (AMT) TO CONSTRUC~;~~ n COMMUNICATION TOWER AT 1 l 104 TOWNE ROAD. I "STRAWMEN" 7. ,., I am questioning the representation by AMT that 11 104 Towne Road is the bes place to•~:: install a communications tower it asserts is needed. First, I want to establish my credibility~fo~my ~ contentions and assertions. `~~t~~ As an attorney in Miami, Florida in 1964 I observed a highly secret acquisition of property. I will relate only the public facts. Using about 326 strawmen (entities and persons) about 8,000 acres of land was slowly acquired. If current owners of nearby land had "gotten word of it" their asking prices would have "sky rocketed". "strawmen" were buying and selling land to each other and there were many other lawful activities appropriate to concealing the project. Of course I am referring to DISNEY WORLD. Walking past 11104 Towne Road frequently I noticed the changes in REAL ESTATE FOR SALE signage. First eight acres were for sale. Next three parcels were for sale. Then the one acre parcel, subject of the proposed variance, was no longer for sale. Looking at the BZA file about this matter for the first time on November 24, 2008 I noticed the one acre site was owned by two families. I thought: WHY would four people want to buy the least desirable parcel for use as a single family residence? And, buy it not knowing the use of the remaining seven acres? During the November 25, 2008 BZA meeting I believe I heard the representatives for AMT say the remaining parcels could be used for condominium development and later, use as a horse farm. In my mind these remarks seemed authoritative. It wasn't until Christine Barton-Holmes, giving the staff report, mentioned the fact BZA has working been working on this subject for 6'/2 years that I began to see the "big picture". Her statement triggered my memory to events that happened forty four years ago. At this time I have no comment about how AMT became the tenant of the land involved. There would be no DISNEY WORLD enhancing the Orlando, Florida economy if land could not have been acquired cost effectively. However, [ do assert and contend that AMT's input about exactly where the tower needs to be may be BOGUS because this particular "lease" was acquired "on the cheap". II C[VIL RIGHTS It is my contention and assertion that Carmel School authorities have prevented Towne Elementary School Employees from giving statements in opposition to the tower being placed next to the school. In doing so there has been an obvious violation of their civil rights. [have credible evidence to contend the ORDER to prevent teachers from OPPOSING the variance came from "high-up" in the Carmel City Administration. Towne Elementary School teacher statements to the BZA about the application before it are important because BZA listened to the University High School imput and rejected the placement of a communications tower at University High School, the old fire station and park nearby. Opponents rely upon the BAZ University High School decision as precedent. Postponing the decision before you on the December 15"', 2008 agenda of BZA will give the City of Carmel time to investigate my contentions and assertions. Also it will give the writer time to present evidence about the design of equipment to be involved which may be an exception to the Federal law you are obliged to follow. Copy # ~ of 75 Copyright ©2008 by Robert C. Ware All rights reserved. r R~c~~ TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s DES ~ j t IN RE AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION, APPLICA '~~~ MOTION Comes now Robert C. Ware and moves the Board of Zoning Appeals to table any further action on its part with respect to granting a variance at its December 15, 2008 meeting which would approve American Tower Corporation to construct a communications tower on property commonly known as 11104 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. In Support thereof I have filed a STATEM ENT OF FACT AND CONTENT-IONS Respectfully submitted Robert C. Ware, Attorney 30 East Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 575-3382 Courtesy Copy hand delivered to John Molitor, Counsel for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Rpt1910@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:45 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower -BZA Hearing Connie Would you please distribute to BZA members these comments regarding proposed cell tower on Towne Road. Dear BZA Members you are given the task of doing what's right for the community and to preserve our fine cify, not to promote corporate profit. The.cell tower proposed for Towne Road is totally out of line with the residences surrounding this large lot. It will significantly ' " reduce the value of homes in the area. Why must it go here if even needed. I have Verizon & have no cell phone problems. We the' people who live in this area, should not bail out a speculator(s) who purchased land they hoped to sub-divide at a quick profit. This land has value as a single family property given time & change in economics. Why.not build the tower;-if REALLY needed, on the land used for the pipeline that goes through this area? The land is not useable for anything else & would not affect zoning of the areas around it. Why was.the petitioner turned down for the site at West Park and the fire station in the same area? The same reasons apply today as they did than. Hqw will the home owners north of this site on Towne Road ever sell their property? Finally ask yourself,would l-waht to live by,this tower& see it every day? How wpuld-hvote,;if it was gping up:,in my neighborhood? Do I want my children going to school, playing & sleeping under this tower? We the people that vote can take action to remove those that do not have the best interests of the electorate at heart. Just because you're not elected doesn't mean the voters can't make changes when those that are supposed to represent us fail their duties. DO THE RIGHT THING for the people who live in West Carmel. Thank You .. _ , , Robert Thorn 2542 Sutton Ave. ,. Make your life easier wdh alLyour friends„ email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it nqw' " 12/3/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: polive@att.net Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:09 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Brett Thomas Subject: Proposed cell tower, BZA Docket # 08080011 SE Section 25.13 Dear Connie, Monday night my wife and I sat in the Council Chambers from 6 P.M. till almost 9:30 P.M. listening to the discussion on putting a cell tower across the street from our development of Huntington Chase.As we sat there we heard the lawyer for the American Tower Corporation expound on how any discussion regarding the health issue that may be associated with the tower proposed to be installed can not be discussed. During his and his experts discussions I got the feeling that the issue of granting a land use variance had already be handled and all they had to do was now handle the special exception issue. If I am incorrect the changing of the zoning from SULow-density residential to a commercial use for this site located at 11104 Towne Road was never voted on. Did 1 miss something? What is the hardship on the property? I can sell it for alot of money I don't believe is a hardship that can be used to change the zoning on a property. If you stick a leased portion of the land with a cell tower on.it with an access road now you won'tsell it as a residential parcel. Since now it has been converted into a commercial property in a low density residential area of Carmel. But that is putting the horse before the cart. Will someone on the BZA please let me know what the hardship is on the land before we even begin to discuss alternative uses like a cell tower and an access road. Putting lease monies from a cell tower into the budget of the City of Carmel by installing them onto city properties like park'and schools make alot of sense to me as a tax payer.This is the avenue that should be followed and championed by the city and not putting the lease monies into the pockets of a private citizen:who purchased the property'in question on speculation and now.is crying hardship. Why didn't we hear from the,property owner at the hearing? What is their hardship? I await hearing from the BZA and we will be present at the December 15th meeting: This time we will eat dinner- first! Thanks for your time and have a Happy Thanksgiving. Paul and Bonnie Oliveira 2516 Sutton Ave. Cannel,IN 46032 - 317-580-9099 11/26/2008 `~~ ~ f~ STATEMENT OPPOSED TO A VARIANCE ? ~' ~~~`~~~~ TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Klit AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD pqq,~ To: Board of Zoning Appeals (B.O.Z.A.) Carmel, Indiana ~ RE: Proposed variance to existing zoning by American Tower Corporation to build a communication tower at 11104 Towne Road ("the property"). (BOZA Docket #s 080811SE and 08080014V) 1. The first objection to a cell phone tower on the property is its unknown but potential danger to children who attend Towne Meadow Elementary School which is adjacent to the property and nearby University High School. Only recently has evidence appeared to link cancer to continued use of a cell phone. Now is not the time to build a cell phone tower creating continuous exposure to children of the tower's emissions. There was a time when Fluoroscopic Machines were in every shoe store. Like cell phones, they were fun to use and children could see their feet in a proposed pair of new shoes. Like cell phone emissions (which would be immensely magnified by a cell phone tower), the roentgen ray, also known as X-Ray, was UNSEEN, UNFELT and UNHEARD. Dr. Hermann Mueller won the Nobel Prize in Physics for proving the danger of X-rays. IMMEDIATELY, Fluoroscopic Machines disappeared from shoe stores all over the United States. Now, medical personnel stand behind a lead screen or leave the room when you are being X-Rayed. Presently, cell phone towers should be located where people just pass by but do not reside or attend school. 2. If a communications tower were erected on the property the rest of the eight acres has no where to go but down as a S1/Low density residential area. Who would want to live there? What, then, would BOZA be facing with the rest of the property upon receipt of further variance applications? 3. If a cell phone tower were erected on the property the value of nearby residences would be diminished by it and foreseeable use of the remaining seveny acres. 4. More residents would object to the proposed variance IF they knew about it. Traveling North on Towne Road you cannot read the Notice posted because it is obscured by tall weeds and the lettering is small. Traveling South on Towne Road you cannotread the Notice posted because it is obscured by a larger Carpenter Realty FOR SALE sign in front of the Notice. (This situation was ameliorated, on or about November 6, 2008.) ~- 5. The site of the proposed variance is a part of the City of Carmel. The City of Carmel has passed an ORDINANCE banning cell phone towers. IFBOZA were to grant a variance to this applicant it may contravene the intent of a published law. The ORDINANCE may "trump" any administrative exception allowable by virtue of Section 25.13 of the Zoning Plan cited by applicant in Section 8 of his application. If, in the event BOZA was inclined to grant a variance to this applicant, BOZA should consider first asking your counsel or the Carmel City Attorney for an opinion about the ORDINANCE. 6. It is our contention the AGREEMENT annexing the proposed site for the communications tower and other property into the city of Carmel states there shall be no variances granted by BOZA in the annexed area until a new comprehensive zoning plan is completed. I do not believe a new zoning plan has been finished. Perhaps you know. BOZA may be violating an agreement the city has with the annexed area if it grants a variance.. FOR RECORD CREATED FOR THIS HEARING two public documents to-wit: City of Carmel ORDINANCE about cell phone towers and the AGREEMENT annexing the area, which includes the proposed cell phone site into the CITY OF CARMEL, are incorporated by reference into our statement. 7. The vacant site where the proposed cell phone tower would be is vicinity of eight acres, not vicinity of one acre as indicated in section 6 of the application for a variance. AS A MINIMUM opponents of the cell phone variance, should be given more time to organize and the above mentioned ORDINANCE and AGREEMENT should be considered by BOZA. HOWEVER, common sense indicates the application for a variance should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Patricia & Robert Ware 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr. Carmel, IN 46032-9540 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWEE ROAD To: Boazd of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) neaz the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. 117 ~Ineh,u-~st Dr~ Address ' I~.l a ~__ ~~I'~ ~~ ~ ! I '7 I~l ne~u~..~t Dr~ /~ NAME n~. Address ~e.l rmP,f l lJ ~ ID (~ ~. N E Address C~~a, M~„t . 1 N ~~o3a NAME ~ NAME ~. S? ~~ NAM a I 1 ~ Al ~.tiA ~i- nr Address a ! ~ ~ Pr r~,,~,t rat D,-~. Address ~~eCme--1 / ti~ ~/-(oC~ 3 2 .~. ~ vs Pl~~~~-r- !Jr-. Address C-C~-rr~-~~ i ~U `-f-~03~~ .z r o5 P~.Ze~,.«.n~ t fir. Address Cct,rw.~ a . I~ ~c~c~-~ Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. NAME / '` NAME e~ NAME .~ NAME ~~ ~ ~~ ~ NAME I p (.o ('i n~c~ 3t 1Jr- Address al O (~ I~~~e hu ~(- p~. Address (^.ea..rrrie I ! ~ ~~C~3~' a. I t ~ P1 ~-~r n.ur„St P~'' ^ Address Address ~ I I FS ~i n .L,,r + I~r^ Address ~CnC~3~ ~~a ~mP~l / ~ ~ ~ I I k ~~ ~k.uM~t Ja' Address NAME NAME Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corpor on (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communicatioh~t@wer at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. NAME Address ~1~~ ~SZ~r7v~P,t G~ TV1 ~~`~-- NAME Address NAME Address NAME Address NAME Address NAME Address NAME Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Waze, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. NAME 1~~.~/ ~s~ ~i NAME NAME NAME ~~fLt~~ 2- 0 7 ,QU ~ i .~l~--C /~ Address Address ~_ 0/fin .~ Mlr~ ~Le~ ~~~,-t~~ ddr ss Zl7~L~ ~Grrhi~- ~ ~"~"~. Address Address Cie ~~ 1 ~ye~~ NAME NAME Address Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) neaz the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. ~~~/ ~? NAME L~ ~~ Address C a~~u.~i ~r(.> Y X03 z- /!/I,i,('_~tP,l1~ ~~~L~(,~'~l.lr's~J l (OC~(o ~~r~ D ~l%i~u~fe~ --tt._z_ ~~ NAME ~ Address ~~~ NAME NAME Cu- ' : --1 NAME ~~~~~~ -~ r ,; NAME -e ~~~~v NAME ~ e~ C e,.~.rve ^/~'• Address 1 .~ -x oP~~ /, ` ~ ~ l )1~~~ p p Q rX L U ~n ~~t .fi- a ~r-fin. ~+,r. ~ fu ,~0 S ~ ~ -~:.~_~rxe'F: °iGCJ 7 Address 2D ~d' ~iwv w~-~ ~z,- ,~ . yN `~~03L ddress Address J ~ // ~m 1 3y G Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam 0 Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) neaz the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. ~~ r,~ (',o~~ NAME c ~" d~ Zq ~ u,ir.~ el~~ Y~~~ Addr ss (' ~~~o ~ ~ (r ~ 3 'Z r~~ w, Addr s /I~~u~ ~ ~ ~~o3z e !/~ ° ~ w f-Y~'C. 1 Jam- // ~ N ~ Address ? ~, y r y~J2 ( JI,Q~~ ~~~ 211 L~ ~~I Q~~a Ci~ -~~1-,'Z . NAME Addres __.---- NAME ~~( ,(ins.- ~-h NAME ~~~-- ..~ Address ~tnd~v~p I jU ~ ~nl') j ~~. Address Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam 0 Shanter Dr., Cannel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWEE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. `~.u,, L~ ~ I b S a~u ~n i rta 1 Y'e.L ~Gt~ NAME /? Address C-Qr~ I ~ ~~..D3~ ~~`~1.- ~ ~~ 15 ~u.a-n,~-d~ Tc~e-c t~.~ NAME ~ ~ ~ ~ Address ' / C~+yVf'yW `d (J U~ 7,~ /d3 ~~ao ~~~-j~~ ME ~~/-~~l dJ~ ~1~0,~~ n ~~~a{-~ ~~v~l L J NAME NAME ~c t ~ 1~I4N.~~S NAME . ~~ ~~~~ . I I b ~ f Tu ryl D ~Sh~ k'~ ~( ~: Address Cac~ ~ , l t ~L~d~ Addr s~ ~.,~~W.~,1 -~-~ ~~u3~. dress A dr s, c~fr~~.i ~ N~ y~~~a Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. ~~ NAMES j Address ~ ~' ~ ~ ! NAME _ , NAME 6 NAME Z NAME ~~~2~1,~~~ C~_ NAME NAME ~ z-I 1 ~ 1~~I e Ta~<<c~-~ ~J Addr s _> ~- -~'-4-c.~~-=~ , sc~ X11-~~ Address `_ ~ Address Address a a 15 P-e ~bhCe ~~ac ,h ~n r , C~~~ vy~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~-1 ~ ~~ ~~~~~ Addr s 2 21 s ;~~ ~~2 E ~.~~ ~~ p~ C~z~,~~EI~N ~f~c~3~z Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 111.40 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. NAME I-P~ ' Sam ~I' NAME NAME ~o~IC~vLb~~r ~~ Address ~' 60~ Z A ~G ~ o yF~ y N ~~=cfl~~i2~ ~f~,2~d Address 1b ~- NAME lD`(UK N ~ac:~ Address Gl ~i ~ `~ ~ ~Oc~ `~ ~ ~ ~ Q~e r-. o~rt . Address ~~~~~ ,~~~~~~<~ ~ a~ v °~ NAME ~-~ ~~~ NAME Address i/ v/~ ~~.~,.5/LJ Addres~s6 ~2 ~2~-wv/ W Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWNE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) neaz the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a vaziance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. ~~dV1o~ ~- LI~IiAn VLt~WI~ - - NAME h1 , NA NAME NAME NAME NAME NAME ~~()~ ~''lUV)cfL~.1i1'~V~ ~V Address Ca„Me~~ , r~ 4bo;Z Q A dress Cam( ~6 0 3 3-- ~. Address Address Address -Address Address Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 11104 TOWEE ROAD To: Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana We, the undersigned residents in the residential district(s) near the proposed cell phone tower OPPOSE a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, (BOZA) to American Tower Corporation (BOZA docket numbers 08080011 and 08080014) to construct a communications tower at 11140 Towne Road, Carmel, Indiana. JOt-h'1 a ~~ISYP~I ~tk~.~A'~ - -- - - --NAME- -- -- ~,~~ e ~~ts ~~~ NAI\ E ~l~iS line Address C~rviel~ :~ ~(,~73Z /©8~.s /a~ti~e n Address C.-~r~n~, ~iU 5/Co032. NAME ' SJ~r~~~ r /'~~ NAME NAME NAME Ci~ ~ ~/1,0~1ti NAME Address zz~7 /~wguJ}c, L.., (~~~,U~ w,6032-- Address ~DB~' l 6nr o ~12,~.~ ~1Jl~e Address r~ ~L' `/6d.3:L / 0 4 ~ e / a.n.... ~ S~~_l~ 1~ Address Can.,-~..3 (~ ~f 6 ~ 3 z ~~~~ ~Ta~6 51,,~,~, ~ ~~ ,~,~ ~ Address /~~~~ ~~ \-e"~r"ten ~" `I-~S~` Please return signed petition to Robert C. Ware, 10840 Tam O Shanter Dr., Carmel, IN 46032 for delivery to B.O.Z.A. T'he following citizens oppose the erection of a cell tower at 1 l 104 Towne Koad in SW Clay Tv~,~p., Carmel IN lYame. Address -~ ~L `/ 3 Z. ~,..d ,2 ~ S-/ S-~-~xz.,, , ~ Pia. ~.z~,~:h~.~.~2. ~G ~a o 3 of a... ~ li~.yo ~a~.. ~ Ga<,~,mal ru '~`asz __ 113-~y ~W N~ ~rj CG-,.,~..n..~+fnl ~bd~~/r/~- ~~3~ 8 GCt.,4Sf-G C-J.C(:LCC (~A7fr/'AY-'L'.. ~~ 7~03'Z i °'_•_ ;' IL~7~r R<,.lal rte. y~o3a `~';ti-w i 6l l~ u. ~~''a S ut~ A..c_ , `tCo 0 3 2.. .'1„~ /a.lsl.'n I1N43 Ratil GT y6b3a 1. Tc: BZA members ~h, ~C Fram: Dee and David Fox, 1.1389 kayal Ct., Carmel '~~(j RE: Towne Rd. Communications Tower (11104 Towne .) REC+~'""' Docket #06080011 SE, 08080014 V ,,,,, November 18, 2008 wv' ~'''~`~' ppG~ Please deny a Special Exception and Variance `'tp'isrs.~ ~ _. ~ .,~ proposed cell tower location. It does not comply w 1 Zoning Grdinance (21:04.02), and there are better alte s in both technology and location. (The DUCS has a tape of Ted Kreines' Wireless Planning Workshop, presented on 11-13-08). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (21.04.02)_: 1. "The approval will not be.injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community ..." * The debate over health effects of radio frequency non- ionizing radiation is long, widespread, heated, and inconclusive. However, many reputable sources/studies cite strong evidence of risks, especially to children. 7`ne public perceives the tower emissions as dangerous. Until proven safe, it seems sensible to err on the side of ceutien. Towne Meadow Elementary ball fields abut the proposed tower property. If approved, some parents plan to move their children t;o private sck[oo1s. Mr. Kreines stated that public schools should be "avoidance areas" for towers. *~ M.r. Kreines explained that setback requirements from property lines/buildings guard against falling ice shards, and tower failure due to tornadoes or earthquakes. Cell sites have generators and fuel tanks. There have been instances of battery sulfuric acid leaks into groundwater, and of explosive hydrogen gas buildup in poorly vented equipment shelters. * Young children may not read warning signs. * The public considers towers to be eyesores that. adversely affect property values. The tower and equipment would be clearly visible from Towne Rd. (.see photo 1). The "natural screening" trees on parts of the lot are bare in the winter and are not necessarily permanent. The "vacant" house to the north is not likely t0 remain vacant. 2. "The use and value of the area adjacent to the premises ... will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner." * The current owners of 11104 Towne Rd. bought the homesite at a low price, failed to sell at their desired price, and do not. live on the property. A setback variance would allow the lucrative tower lease area to be Glaser to adjacent properties, thereby leaving more of the original lot for further development. A zoning exception fur the tower would most likely enable rezoning of the remaining property far mare profitable development than single- family detached residential. Surraunding homQOwners (and the AZA) are under no obligation to enable personal business ventures. * Area residents are very concerned that the granting of a zoning exception for a utility site on this residential property would likely lead to future +indesirable development nearby (uti]ity7`commercial/higher density). (See photo 2). Since large- lot homeowners arefer not to live near a cell tower, the owners of each successive adjacent "compromised" property ~;.,~~( likely seek rezones in order to sell. r 2. * A tower wauld harm the values of Kings Mill homes behind it, and of Huntington Chase and Crooked Stick homes along Towne 13d. The Lakeside Park development on 141st Sty built next to an existing tower, is full of houses except fur several con- spicuously bare homesites nearer to the tower that are still . unsold. (See photo 3). 3. "The need for the Specia]. Exception arises from the applicant's responsibility to provide utility service ..." * The burden of proof is an the petitioner that this servir.e is needed. Some area residents have no coverage problems; some have limited "dead spots". It depends on the carrier. The tower companies and carriers compete, rather than cooperate to best serve areas. The applicant's information and coverage maps are fur Sprint Nextel only, so the map doesn't show all existing towers. Information on other carriers' tower locations, ranges, and coverage holes would be helpful. 4. "It will constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the Special Exception is denied .. " * For 6 years, the tower company has been denied sites in this area, such as West Park (its first choice), Croaked Stick Golf Course, University High School, and private properties. These entities could just say "No". Having.: now found an invest- ment property owner who sought the lease money, surrounding homeowners do npt-have th2-option to just say "NO". MUSt they get this tower by default? The Kreines Wireless Workshop made clear that there are alternate equipment and location possibilities. The applicant could be part of such a Wireless Master Plan, but tower companies prefer large towers because they are bi,g moneymakers. 5. "The approval of the Special Exception does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan, in that there are no alternative sites suitab.te ." * The purpose of planning is to find the best fit for the right area. The S-1 all-residential zoning in this area: was to protect. large-]ot homeowners from such industrial-type uses. Both the 2020 Plan and the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan support and preserve this area's zoning. City Council enacted the 116th St. Overlay to protect it from nonresidential uses, and has acted befare to keep such uses from IocatiT.g directly on Towne Rd. * The applicant has not proven that "there are no alternative sites suitable". The proposed site i.s simply the path of.' least resistance and most revenue. There are no towers shown slang G.S. 421, a much more suitable location that might offer more than the proposed 2 mile range. The Wireless Planning. Workshop informed that technology changes wit] span require more cell sites Glaser together, making large towers unsustainable. Wireless facilities do not have to be big towers. Wireless facilities can be much lower, disguised. on buildings, in bell towers or steeples, in trees, on utility poles, etc. No nearby towers or. which to collocate equipment does not mean the proposed location is the only option. 3. ~.nother c;onsideraticzn raised by Mr. Krei.nes was that tower equipment often multiplies after the original petition is approved ~, '"r,is ap~;lir.ation i:~ for a 120' tower with rental space for 4 carraeru. Three ~r four outdoor equipment boxes Per carrier would surro~:xnd i.t. (Each 3' ~ 2' X 6' ta11, and not in a disguised' shelter buiidingj. Foundations are built to hold more capacity than approved. The applicant plans to ask for a 1~Q'__tpw~r height to accommodate .6_carriers. C~.~rnrel government I5 realizing that :his cell tower applica- tion. i.s just the beginning of a line farming at its door, .and that the tower companies have the advantage. The City needs to have a Wireless Master Flan "with teeth", acid 'to work with utilities to find wireless sites that least impact existing homeowners. Mr. K.reines r.laims such a plan could be accomplished in 3 to 6 months, with staff~_support. Please_ao not allow a zoning exception on the Towne Rd. site before a plan is in place. ~FfiOTU 1: View or proposed cell tower site clearly visible from Towne Pd. Existing garage wi3.1 t,e removed. ., ~. _TpP PHOTO 2: Crowncastle ee11 tower and utility equipment at 635 W. 131st fit. Hence, the "eyesore" la~vel. HOTiOM_PHOTO 3: Lakeside mark vacant homesites near American Tower cell tower at 2525 W. 141st St. The tower sits farther off the lower right corner of the photo. Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: john_gervais [johnalangervais@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:32 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed cell tower near Towne Meadow Elementary School Dear Connie Tingley, I am sending this email to express my opposition to the construction of a cell tower neaz Towne Meadow Elementary School. In addition to the further drop in area property values, unpleasing blight on the area scenery and fickleness with established zoning, my biggest concern is the unforeseen health risks. How many times in the past have we been told something was safe, only to later Team the truth: asbestos, DDT; dalkon shields, Vioxx..... Are we really going to expose the young children of the elementary school to a potential unknown risk?. Pm not against progress, nor am I against the use of cell phones and the towers they require. But surely there is a better place than a few hundred feet from an elementary school. I hope you will agree we should exercise a little extra caution when children are involved. Sincerely, 10/27/2008 Message Tingley, Connie S From: Michael Share [mshare@indy.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:17 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower near Towne Meadow Elementary Ms. Tingley, I am absolutely 100% against a cell tower being built near Towne Meadow Elementary School. Page 1 of 1 It is a disgrace that the zoning commission would even consider such a ludicrous idea! Obviously, none of them have children in that school. While I am sure no one wants a cell tower built near their home, building one close to a school is unconscionable and reckless: "- The suburbs of Indianapolis are filled with empty fields that are far away from schools and homes. I clearly do not have all the facts in this case. ,However, in this situation I do not need them. Michael Share 11716 Shadowwood Court . Zionsville, IN 46077 10/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Kristin Decker [sk84evrmore@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:46 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Re: Towne Rd Communications Tower Board of Zoning Appeals Members: In regard to: 7-8h. Towne Rd Communications Tower The applicant seeks the following development standards variance and special exception approvals: Docket No. 08080011 SE Section 25.13 Communications tower in residential district Docket No. 08080014 V Section 25.13(B) Setback less than 1000 per tower height from property line. I would like to express my concern over the proposed variance for a communications tower in this residential area. Not only would the tower be an eye sore, it would have a negative impact on our property values and pose a potential risk to the neighboring citizens as well as the youth attending nearby Towne Meadow elementary. Some studies show that remaining in close proximity to a communications tower for extended periods can cause long term health problems including depression, immune system suppression, infertility, memory loss, attention deficit, and abnormal cell growth. Approving a variance that could be detrimental to the mental and physical well being of the populace to a city "committed to preserving its vitality through controlled expansion and prudent planning" would be hypocritical. Further urbanization of the West Clay area needs to be limited. There are already towers in the vicinity (96th and Ditch) and additional sites should not be granted for this type of commercial use. I ask that the committee place the home values, health, and safety of the neighboring citizens over the profits of one landholder, I ask that you unequivocally deny this request for zoning variance. Kind Regards, Kristin Decker 2212 Tam O Shanter Ct. Carmel, IN 46032 9/18/2008 Cell Tower at 111th & Towne Road Tingley, Connie S Page 1 of 1 From: James G. Null (jgnull@HJSpier.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:03 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower at 111th & Towne Road As a homeowner in Crooked Stick West, we are concerned with the proposal for the cell phone tower across the street from our neighborhood and adjacent to our school. We strongly oppose it and would appreciate your assistance in helping to defeat the proposal. Thanks, Jim & Christy Null 2116 Pebble Beach Drive Carmel, IN 46032 9/18/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Amy Wilson [akmerrell@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:35 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Towne Road Ms Tingley I am writing to express my opposition to the new proposed cell phone tower on Towne Road in Cannel. I am a resident of Kings Mill neighborhood and a proud mother of a kindergartener at Towne Meadow Elementary School. I have done some reading about this issue, and I have found that the evidence of the safety of cell phone towers is inconclusive. The following is an excerpt from the Amercian Cancer Society's webpage concerning cell phone towers: The Bottom Line... Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiologic studies. There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of RF have not suggested a risk of cancer. People who are concerned can ask for measurements of RF near cellular phone towers to be sure exposures do not exceed recommended limits. Until studies can be done, we should not be putting these towers near residential areas, and certainly not directly adjacent to an elementary school! Please make the right choice and do not approve the zoning of this tower. Thank you. Amy and David Wilson 2979 Winterset Drive Cannel, EV 46032 873-4521 9/18/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Ty Decker [ty_decker@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:10 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Near Town Meadow As a resident of the West Clay area I am apposed to the installation of a cell phone tower on residential property. recommend that this variance in zoning be voted down. Regards, Ty Decker 9/18/2008 Tingley, Connie S From: Sherry Hoffman [sherryobaby3@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:13 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Tower This is in response to the building of the cellular tower near Towne Meadow school. I am in total disagreement to have this tower built near the school because of the health risk to the children and the surrounding neighborhoods. Hope this helps. Thanks Sherry Hoffman Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Jane null mull@indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:46 PM To: ctingley@carmel.in.gov Subject: opposition to cell tower Hi Cindy- We live in Kingsmill neighborhood at 106th and Towne Road and have three children at Towne Meadow. We are vehemently opposed to any cell tower being erected next to the school for obvious reasons, the most important of which is the health of our children. Please help oppose this proposal. Thank you. Jane and Steve Null 9/18/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Dbohn2@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:05 PM To: Tingley, Connie S; gphillips@ccs.k12.in.us; bcalabrese@ccs.kl2.in.us; thackett@ccs.k12.in.us; sbacker@ccs.kl2.in.us; aklein@ccs.k12.in.us Cc: Ebbohn2@aol.com Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Dear Ms. Tingley and Carmel School Board We are writing to express our strong opposition to erecting a cell phone tower on Towne Road next to Towne Meadow Elementary School. I believe such a tower will pose a health risk to children in the school and nearby residents. It also will negatively impact the appearance and quality of this residential area. Cell towers should not be built in or near such areas. We urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to reject the request for permission to build this tower on Towne Road. Any future requests to build cell towers in other residential areas should be denied. Thank you for considering our input. Dan and Beth Bohn Kingsmill Subdivision 2988 Cameo Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Psssst...Have you heard the news? There s anew fashion„blog, plus_the latest fall trends and hairstyles at_StyleList.com. 9/18/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: mholtzlander@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2008 9:53 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower on Towne Road Please vote against the cell tower proposed on Towne Road. The proposed site is and needs to remain residential! Thanks, Mark & Stephanie Holtzlander 11480 Sutton Place Drive East Carmel, IN 46032 Mark Holtzlander 317-581-9658 Looking for spoilers and reviews on the new TV season? Get AOL's ultimate guide to fall TV. 9/18/2008 Tingley, Connie S From: Dan Bublick [dbublick@indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:49 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: [BULK] Cell Phone Tower Opposition Importance: Low Dear Ms Tingley, We have a child that attends Towne Meadow Elementary and we live in the adjacent residential neighborhood of Kingsmill. My wife and I are strongly opposed to the petition of American Tower Company seeking a zoning variance for the purpose of erecting a cell tower on the property next to Towne Meadow Elementary School. There are considerable and serious health effects associated with cell phone towers. Placing a cell phone tower in the vicinity of Towne Meadow Elementary and in the mists of a residential neighborhood would pose serious health effects to our child, family, and neighbors. Such tower placement would be completely irresponsible. Furthermore, the tower would be perceived as a liability to anyone looking to buy or sell a home in this area. Such placement would place a stigma on our neighborhood. Such perception would significantly effect property value. We have a great deal at stake in this decision. The health of our children, our health, and property values will be placed in harm's way. It is our hope that the Carmel Board of zoning Appeals takes our opinion seriously and votes to oppose this variance. Yours truly, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Bublick 2984 winterset Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Lisa Deremiah [blderemiah@indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16,2008 1:47 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell phone tower Will this cause potential health hazards to children and zoning changes to my area. If so I vote no. Most people aren't discussing anything that important on their cell phones anyway. 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Cherri Malkani [clmalkani@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:46 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: 'Malkani, Sanjay' Subject: proposed cell phone tower next to towne road elementary Dear Ms. Tingley, My husband and I were very alarmed to hear of the proposed cell phone tower to be erected next to Towne Road Elementary. Not only is Towne Road our designated elementary school, but we also live right next door in the Kingsmill subdivision. This means our three children would be exposed to elevated cellular radiation 24 hours a day. They would virtually never be away from it. This is extremely concerning to us as parents of three very young children. We never would have imagined this possibility when we moved here two years ago and we would be devastated. Our oldest son has an autistic spectrum difference and we are very involved in many aspects of alternative medicine in trying to benefit his sensitive brain and immune system and frankly we can't believe that an enormous cell phone tower could be erected so close........not only to our neighborhood but also an elementary school! Please vote this proposal down and do not allow this to happen to our neighborhood children,,especially the more sensitive ones at risk. Thank you for your time, Cherri Malkani 2999 Walnut Creek Dr. N Carmel, IN 46032 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Mike Bates [gbates@indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:55 AM To: ctingley@carmel.in.gov Subject: Cell Tower at Towne Meadow Ms. Tingley: Please accept this a-mail as an objection to the placement of a cellular tower in close proximity of Towne Meadow School and my neighborhood of Kingsmill. With all of the commericial property available right at 106th and Michigan Road a spot for the tower there would Burley be available. So the proposed location is not only an eyesore but quite possibly a health hazard to students and the neighborhood. Before any tower is to be placed I would demand (as I'm sure my neighbors would as well) that an environmental study be done at this location to determine the detrimental effects such a tower would have to health and safety and that this study be posted publically for all to see. This zoning variance needs to be nipped in the bud NOW!!!!! Mike Bates 10640 Jewel Lane Carmel, IN 46032 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Schuchman, Jeff [Schuchman)@repsrv.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:59 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: New Cell Tower - 11104 Towne Road Ms. Tingley As a resident of King's Mill and parent with a child at Towne Meadow Elementary School, we are not interested in having a cell tower erected by the American Tower Company on [he property at 11104 Towne Road. Please deny their request. Thank you, Jeff Schuchman Division Controller Republic Services of Indiana, LP Office- 317917-7349 Fax - 317 917-7301 Mobile - 317 716-0666 www.indywaste.com 9/16/2008 Tingley, Connie S From: Don Gaertner [dgaertner@maraud.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:48 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Phone Tower Please hear my respectful voice in opposition to the granting of a waiver for the erection of a cell phone tower next to Town Meadow Elementary School. This is a poor utilization of land in a area so close to an elementary school. Best regards, Donald J. Gaertner Maraud, Inc. 7756 Moller Rd. Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 317-228-8888 Fax:317-228-8889 Mobile:317-508-3051 dgae rtnerC~maraud.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: William P. Fuller [wfuller@hhclaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:48 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: annefuller@sbcglobal.net; madelineo@indy.rr.com Subject: Cell Phone Tower on Towne Road I am a resident of Windsor Grove (10582 Iron Horse Lane), and I strongly oppose American Tower Company's request for a variance. William Fuller William P. Fuller Hackman Hulett & Cracratt, LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 3500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2030 Phone: 317/636-5401, Ext. 229 Fax: 317/686-3288 Email: wfuller@hhclaw.com Website: www.hhclaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney- client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, you are on notice that disclosure, copying, distribution, and use of this E-mail or any attachment are prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting it from your system. Thank you. TAX ADVICE NOTICE: To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations (IRS Circular 230), we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. HACKMAN HULETT & CRACRAFT. LLP 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: SLLEBO@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:13 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: gphillips@ccs.k12.in.us; bcalabrese@ccs.k12.in.us; thackett@ccs.k12.in.us; sbacker@ccs.kl2.in.us; aklein@ccs.kl2.in.us Subject: Proposed Cell Tower @ Towne Meadow School As a resident of Kings Mill Estates, I am writing to you about the above mentioned cell tower. I wish to submit my feelings to reject the said tower. This proposed tower will have a negative impact on the quality of life in my neighborhood as well as a potential effect on the health, safety and welfare of my children and other residents of our subdivision. Additionally, the children and teachers at the school could be impacted by this proposed tower. I appreciate your consideration and hope that you will reject the proposal of placing a cellular phone tower at Towne Meadow Elementary School. Steve Lebovits 2993 Topaz Lane Carmel, IN 46032 (317)733-9532 sllebo@aol.com Psssst...Have you heard the news? There s_a new fashion_blog,_plus the latest fall trends_and hair styles at StyleList,com. 9/16/2008 Tingley, Connie S ~U From: Kenn Scribner [kenn@endurasoft.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:48 PM Page 1 of 9 To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: 'Donna Jacobi'; 'Retha Turner'; 'Leitch, Ryan'; 'Peisner, Jonathan (Corporate)'; 'Neal Jacobs'; 'Kenn Scribner' To [he Carmel City Council, We the homeowners and families of the Kings Mill neighborhood stand united in our apposition to the erection of a cellular tower immediately adjacent to the Towne Meadow Elementary School. Kings Mill is a 141 home neighborhood located adjacent to the land upon which the proposed tower would be placed. We find no justification for defacing our neighborhood in such a manner and are deeply concerned about the adverse health effects on Towne Meadow Students, a school many of our children attend, and the likely degradation of home and property values. We have respectfully attached many citations outlining the negative health effects associated with high-frequency and high-energy electromagnetic fields, and whether or not others feel all of these studies are invalid for reasons of their own, [he fact is there is no reason to subject our children to the even the slightest potential of carcinogenic electromagnetic effects. We respectfully request [he city council (school board) rule in favor of protecting the citizens of the newly-annexed area in which this tower would be located in accordance with the specifications of the annexation and deny the rezoning request. This stmcture is not in the best interests of all, or even any, of the surrounding areas. With deepest respect, The Kings Mill Homeowner's Association Board of Directors Donna Jacobi, President Retha Turner, Vice President Jon Peisner, Treasurer Kenn Scribner, Secretary Ryan Leitch, Member Neal Jacobs, Member 1. "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Personal Communications Services Base Station, Site 06-460I: Ossining High School, Ossining, New York" prepared by the Wireless & Optical Technologies Safety Department of Bell Laboratories for Sprint Spectrum L.P. 2. An intemational blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non- Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel." June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July/August 1998 3. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use ofHand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: "Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to 9/16/2008 Page I of 9 Tingley, Connie S From: Kenn Scribner [kenn@endurasoft.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:54 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: 'Donna Jacobi'; 'Retha Turner'; 'Leitch, Ryan'; 'Peisner, Jonathan (Corporate)'; 'Neal Jacobs'; 'Kenn Scribner'; fryde@lightbound.com;'Ertel, Chad' Subject: Kings Mill Opposes Cellular Tower Adjacent to Towne Meadow Elementary School To the Carmel City Council, We the homeowners and families of the Kings Mill neighborhood stand united in our opposition to the erection of a cellular tower immediately adjacent to [he Towne Meadow Elementary School. Kings Mill is a 141 home neighborhood located adjacent to the land upon which the proposed tower would be placed. We find no justification for defacing our neighborhood in such a manner and are deeply concerned about the adverse health effects on Towne Meadow Students, a school many of our children attend, and the likely degradation of home and property values. We have respectfully attached many citations outlining the negative health effects associated with high-frequency and high-energy electromagnetic fields, and whether or not others feel all of these studies are invalid for reasons of their own, the fact is there is no reason to subject our children to the even the slightest potential of carcinogenic electromagnetic effects. We respectfully request the city council (school board) rule in favor of protecting the citizens of the newly-annexed area in which this tower would be located in accordance with the specifications of the annexation and deny the rezoning request. This structure is not in the best interests of all, or even any, of the surrounding areas. With deepest respect, The Kings Mill Homeowner's Association Board of Directors Donna Jacobi, President Retha Turner, Vice President Jon Peisner, Treasurer Kenn Scribner, Secretary Ryan Leitch, Member Neal Jacobs, Member 1. "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Persona] Communications Services Base Station, Site 06-460I: Ossining High School, Ossining, New York" prepared by the Wireless & Optical Technologies Safety Department of Bell Laboratories for Sprint Spectrum L.P. 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)_of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non- Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel." June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July/August 1998 3. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use ofHand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue 9/16/2008 Page 2 of 9 temperatures by greater than 1C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in people subject to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency fields. In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations." International Conunission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters,"Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996 The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states: "An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable data on chronic exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute exposures, even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature." IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for Safe Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992 4. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997) using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our current standards (SAR of 1.6 W/Kg, the maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. This shows that "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note that "because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, glioblastoma, a human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research. E.M. Czerska, J Casamento, J T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects ofRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cell Proliferation, " (Abstract presented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics and Possible Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MDJ E. M Czerska, J. Casamento Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA, H. T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA 5. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the International Electromagnetic Fields Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lvmohomas (a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the researchers pointed out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to develop cancer, and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer." Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true nonthermal effect." He repeated the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implications for his original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed no statistical differences, which lessens the possibility that the RF study result was a chance event or due to errors in methodology." It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was developed in 1996. 9/16/2008 Page 3 of 9 M. Repacholi et al., "Lymphomas in Eµ-Piml Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields, " Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997 6. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones. The rats were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hours a day, four days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes, so total exposure was 4 hours a week. Interestingly this effect was not present when anon- digital, analog signal was used. Rats exposed developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency can influence cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study. Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital ofLoma Linda, CA presented the results ofpulsed (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997 2"d World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy. Reviews can be found in Microwave News issues July/August, 1996 arrd March/Apri11997. 7. Dr. A. W. Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27 months of age to low- level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers. A. W. Guy, C K Chou, L. Kunz, L, Crowley, and J Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure on Rats. "Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, USF- SAM-TR-85-I1; 1985 8. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported breaks in both single stranded and double stranded DNA in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases. H. Lai arrd N P. Singh, "Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation, "International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No. 4, 513-521, 1996 9. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has found that those exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data suggesting adose-response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed, and those exposed to 600-1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. 1000 W/cm2 is the level considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations. Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm2 is allowed. S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Freyuency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation, "The Science of the Total Environment 180: 9-17, 1996 10. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02 W/cm2 farther from the towers. B. Hocking, L R. Gordon, H L. Grain, and G. E. Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers,"Medical Journal ofAustralia 165: 601-605,' 1996 11. Drs. Mann and Roschke investigated the influence ofpulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency and a 9/16/2008 Page 4 of 9 REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percentage of REM sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especially concerning consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with alterations of memory and learning functions." K Mann and J R6schke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep, Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996 12. Dr. Allen Frey has been researching microwave radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the abstract on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous recent reports of headaches occurring in association with the use ofhand-held cellular telephones. Are these reported headaches real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is reason to believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood-brain bamer appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the bamer. Third, the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines of research, the microwave energy used was approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies--as those emitted by present day cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects?" A. K Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?"Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 106, Num. 3, pp.101-103, March 1998 13. Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF: Existing data indicate that RF of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain bamer morphology, electro~hysiology, neurotransmitter functions cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RR have been reported. Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF exposure could lead to adverse consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an accident when a person is driving. Lass of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF. Research has also shown that the effects of RF on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RF could be a stress response. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes. K Lai, "Neurological Effects ofRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology, "Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk?" September 16- 17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium 14. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining the blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that "Even though most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF of high intensities with significant increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities....Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF." Pulsed RF is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm2 level, and even at SAR of 0.016-5 W/Kg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function. K Lai, Ibid 9/16/2008 Page 5 of 9 15. Cellular MorphologX: RF induced morphological changes of the central nervous system are shown only to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them, for instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in morpholoey, esnecially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Iniury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 W/Kg or even 0.26 W/Kg. K Lai, Ibid 16. Neural Electronh siy ologX: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, and EEG have been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesting cumulative effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cmz. H. Lai, Ibid 17. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve cell to another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, serotonin, and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF. However, there are more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities of RF. For example, effects were seen at 50 W/cmZ in one experiment. RF activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine-like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, such as pain perception and motivation. The response to RF depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure. Exposure to RF has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium). H. Lai, Ibid 18. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RF exposure on energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposure to relatively low intensity RF for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the frequency and modulation characteristics of the RF and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue. Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neurotransmitters and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some researchers have also reported no significant effects of RF exposure on calcium efflux. However, when positive effects were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF studied (window effects). Some studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg. H. Lai, Ibrd 19. Cvtoaenetic effects: Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RF. Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF, and these results could have important implication for the health effects of RF. Genetic damage to glial cells can result in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neuronal genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of 1 mW/cm2 were employed, a level considered safe for the public by the FCC. RF-induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with melatonin 9/16/2008 Page 6 of 9 or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds are potent free radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. If free radicals are involved in the RF-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have an important implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, such as cancer and atherosclerosis, have been suggested. Free radicals also plat/ an important role in the agin¢ process, which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington, and Parkinson has also been suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of RF exposure. K Lai, Ibid 20. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy of Sciences, presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time was slower. A. A. Kolodynski, V. V. Kolodynska, "Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia, "The Science of the Total Environment 180: 87-93, 1996 21. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency microwaves at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" function. HLai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat, " Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994 22. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to a radiofrequency electromagnetic field of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal where the report appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressure." S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to aRadio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field, "The Gancet 351, pp. 1, 857-1, 858, 1998 23. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration) found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power density pulsed microwaves caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage to the cells covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the "acceptable, safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering from glaucoma. This is a very important .. ~.. A., ....:~ ..,.:..,~., a,. al, .. C..,,t •1...• L,l,..~.. a,.'.. .,.,....~:.,....«~....., A... n:,i o..ln ......Aa.......,.e .....el., ..,L,..~ ....e C... A..:...e.,l 1:F from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply vounger or older than those in the experiments. K A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, and S. Koslov, "Increased Sensitivity of the Non- Human Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment,"Bioelectromagnetics 13:379- 393, 1992 24. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development of children." Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever- increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF Project will last for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies 9/16/2008 Page 7 of 9 above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project." World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, T7ae International EMF Project, "reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems, "reviewed May 1998, underlining added 25. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the agency established the following priorities: • Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority. • Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis. • Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular effects of RF radiation exposure). • Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A careful replication of the Chou and Guy study (Bioeleetromagnetics, /3, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, would contribute a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products. • Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on induction of micronuclei..... • Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted.... Food and Drug Administration Reconm:endations quoted in Microwave News, March/April, 1997 26. The International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC . is planning a multicountry, multimillion dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998. Microwave News, January/February, 1998 27. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone radiation and brain tumors in 1997. Microwave News, November/December, 1997 28. The National Cancer Institute announced plans fora 5 year study of brain tumors and cellular phone radiation in 1993. Microwave News, January/February, 1993 29. The European Commission (ECl Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called fora 5 year research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997 . Microwave News ,January/February, 1997 30. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is imperative that the scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more research to examine the potential health effects of RF radiation. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 31. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5 year, $3.5 million 9/16/2008 Page 8 of 9 project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 32. Finally, the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barnett, a principal researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year period would be necessary. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies,"a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 33. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association: "I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following comments when you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found absolutely safe. In fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there can be no hazard, leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at a11.....More specifically, your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellular phones are "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk Paper also states, "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it before, is this: Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe, or that they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is needed." Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July/August, 1993 34. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSUIEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among them (1) "the ANSUIEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSUIEEE standard are based on a thermal effect." Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993 35. A brief sampling of the report, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies" follows: Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure. As a result, such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological studies providing useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of cancer growth. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent years.... [RF] safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been aimed at the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to find that although the literature contains many hundreds of publications, there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of clear thresholds and [the] presence 9/16/2008 Page 9 of 9 of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided answers.... There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standazd is based only on well-established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle nonthermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and apply to human health.... Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies, " a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 36. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse health impacts," according to Dr. Jurgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, which cover the spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Biolectromagnetics Society in St. Pete Beach, FL, on June ] 0. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" such as nerve stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the April issue of Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other nonthermal health effects have not been "established." ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk. Bernhardt noted that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding_prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive. Microwave News, July/August, 1998, underlining added 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: EMEL & MEHMET DONER [m_doner@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:31 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: cell tower on Towne Rd. Oh, please!! How could a cell tower be located next to an elementary school and a very high density of neighborhoods? Yes, we have a bad cell connection around this part of the town, but please explain to me why here than many other open areas rather than tiny four acres. We oppose this tower fiercely!! Mehmet and Emel Doner 2212 Burning Tree Lane Carmel, IN 46032 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Laura Wilson [LWilson6@Indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:00 PM To: ctingley@carmel.in.gov Subject: Objection of the Cellular Tower on Towne Rd Connie Tingley, We are opposed to this proposition o(a cellular tower so close to Towne Meadow Elementary, which poses a health risk to our children and will negatively affect our property values in Kings Mill. We strongly object. Sincerely, Laura Wilson 9/16/2008 Tingley, Connie S From: Melissa Franiak [mfraniak@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 9:52 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: cell tower proposition Please be advised that as a homeowner in the Kings Mill neighborhood (106th and Towne Road), I oppose the proposition of the construction of a cell tower on Towne Road. It is too close to the school. The developments of the area have paid attention to maintaining a natural, park-like aesthetic to the properties, and a cell tower would greatly detract from these efforts. I am concerned it would directly impact property values. Thank you for your careful consideration. Melissa Franiak 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: MCLJS@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 9:06 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell Tower John and Stacia McLimore residing at 10738 Knight Drive in Kingsmill, strongly oppose the cell tower proposed on Towne Road. Please let us know if there is further action that we can take to block this! Thanks so much! Stacia McLimore Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,_plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleLisLcom. 9/16/2008 Proposed Cell Phone Tower next to Towne Meadow Elementary Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: ken.mentz [ken.mentz@studentventure.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 9:04 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower next to Towne Meadow Elementary We're writing to voice our opposition to the proposed cell phone tower next to Towne Meadow Elementary School. While we would have to admit our cell phone coverage in this area is poor, we don't think it appropriate to place a tower next to the school and in the back yard of the neighboring residential communities. I was told that you were the person to voice our concern about this to. If there is someone else to communicate with, please let me know. Thank you, Ken & Kae Mentz Residents of Crooked Stick West 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Brad Bostic (brad.bostic@chacha.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:58 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: bosticamy@hotmail.com Subject: Cell tower proposed at 11104 Towne Road Importance: High Dear Connie: As a resident in King's Mill neighborhood, adjacent to Towne Meadow School and 11104 Towne Road, I am writing to voice my opposition to the cell phone tower that has been proposed for 11104 Towne Road. The primary reasons for my opposition to this are as follows: Strong evidence suggests that cell phone towers can have harmful health effects to those who are located nearby. Considering that our community's children learn and play in Towne Meadow School on the property directly adjacent to the proposed cell tower site, this is clearly not the best site for such a structure; . The need for a tower in this vicinity in general is questionable given that all major cell phone carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc...) already have strong signals throughout the area; Property values would be impacted adversely in the surrounding neighborhoods which clearly would not be in the best interest of the citizens of our community; Based on the negative health impacts to children, the lack of a real need for such a tower, and the negative impact on property values, it seems clear that the best choice is to reject the proposed variance for the purpose of erecting this tower. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, --Brad Bostic Brad Bostic ~ President and Co-Founder ChaCha-Ask away. Text 242242 or Call 1-800-2ChaCha www.ChaCha.com 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Robin Weiss [rweiss@indy.rr:com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:29 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cellualr Tower Ms. Tingley: I am concerned with the proposed location of a new cellular tower. I feel that a cellular tower in such close proximity to Towne Meadow Elementary School poses a health risk to the children and could significantly affect property values of the nearby homes and quality of life. Robin Weiss 2983 Winterset Drive Carmel, IN 46032 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Todd Katz [Todd@bell-horn.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:53 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Cell Tower I am writing to express my grave concern of having a cell tower installed next to my kids school and my neighborhood. I will participate both time and money to put a stop to have this awful proposal. Todd Katz Kings Mill Resident. EIl-NOR, "America's First Orthopedic Company" Todd Katz 4511 West 99th Street Carmel, IN 46032 tel: 317-228-1144 fax: 317-228-1155 Want a sig_natu~e.l(ke this? This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those ofBell-Horn, Inc. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachlnents. 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Sara Warren [saranwarren@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:42 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Dear Ms. Tingley, My husband and I are Carmel residents and we strongly oppose a Cell Tower being placed on Towne Rd. I know everyone who I have spoken to around here feel the same way. There are several reasons why this would be a very bad idea. Thank you, Drs. Sara and Curt Warren Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn °10 hidden secrets" from Jamie. Learn Now 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Retha Turner [rturner003@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:33 PM To: Tingley, Connie S; gphillips@ccs.k12.in.us; bcalabrese@ccs.kl2.in.us; thackett@ccs.kl2.in.us; sbacker@ccs.kl2.in.us; aklein@ccs.k12.in.us Subject: Zoning for Cell Tower To Whom It May Concern: I am in opposition to erecting a cell tower on the property next to Towne Meadow Elementary School at 11104 Towne Road. Sincerely, Gary & Retha Turner Kings Mill Residents 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Judi Kennedy (Judi@endurasoft.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:26 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: 'Kenn Scribner' Subject: cell tower proposal To Whom it May Concern: Erecting a cell tower immediately next to Towne Meadow Elementary School may pose a health risk to the children as well as be an unsightly nuisance. As a resident of King's Mill, I am also concerned it may adversely affect property values, which in our current economic climate we cannot afford. I will gladly accept my current level of cellular service in exchange for keeping an unsightly and potentially unsafe tower out of our neighborhood and away from our elementary school children. Respectfully, Judith L Kennedy, MD King's Mill Resident -. 9/16/2008 Tingley, Connie S From: R Franiak [rfraniak@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:06 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: zoning variance Dear Connie Tingley I am writing you this brief email to voice my opposition to the proposed cell tower construction next to Towne Meadow. I worry about the proximity to the school and our children. Also, I feel that such a variance would only reduce local property values and quality of life. Thank you for your attention. Please contact me if you have any questions Randall Franiak 1 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Dave Sibley [dave.sibley@whitelodging.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 5:05 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Opposition to erecting a cell tower at 11104 Towne Road Ms.Tingley, I am in opposition to putting a cell tower so close to a school(11104 Towne Road) and our neighborhood. Thank you, Dave Sibley 2976 Kings Court Carmel,IN 46032 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Tricia Hatheway [hathewayt l @comcast.netj Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:37 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Cell tower on Towne Road In regards to the cell tower proposal on Towne Road in Carmel Indiana. I have a child whom attends Towne Meadow Elementary school and I am very concerned with the threat of radiation. Please reconsider this site and look for a site that is not within residential or school zones. Thank you. Tricia Hatheway 9/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Rpt1910@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: BZA Meeting 9/22/08 American Tower Co. Connie My name is Bob Thorn, I work for Metro Study & live at 116th St. and Towne Road. I've met you before when gathering information for my employer and ask that you please forward this to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals. As a resident of Huntington Chase subdivision, a residential area close to the Cell Tower that is being considered on property near Towne Meadow Elementary, my wife and I oppose the commercial use of this residential property. If sole purpose is to get better cell reception that's not even a matter for discussion. I've had several carriers in my 15 years living in Huntington Chase and have always had good reception. As for my property and my neighbors, this tower(s) would significantly reduce value of our homes. I would fight for a significant decrease in value. Think how much tax dollars you'll lose. I know property value goes down, just look at the type subdivisions that go up around towers or utility power lines. They are a health risk and families know this. Do you want the children of the school exposed to those risks? Vote the way you would honestly vote if someone wanted to build this in your residential area. Don't change the building codes for this utility or future commercial use. Why not use the vacant land that the recent pipes went through north of 106th ST. between Michigan Rd. and Shelbourne A tower does not belong in this area, which the Board must know, therefore voting no to the Tower. Sincerely Robert and Meridy Thorn 2542 Sutton Ave. Carmel, IN. 46032 PH.#317-571-0257 Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog~plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. 9/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Gus Sevastianos [GusS@citimarkinc.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:52 AM To: ctigley@carmel.in.gov Subject: Zoning Appeal for Cell Tower installation at 11104 Towne Road Ms Tingley~$B!D~(B Good morning! I am a home owner at 2490 Sutton Place Drive South, Huntington Chase subdivision of Carmel, located at the South East corner of 116th street and Towne Road, directly across from the noted property above. My wife and I are extremely concerned about object to the potential variance being proposed to allow for a cell tower to be installed on this property. We are not only concerned about the effect on our property values and the health of others, but also the direct impact on my health. As a very recent recipient of a Pacemaker / Defibrillator, I am extremely concerned about the direct impact this will have on my health and the effectiveness of my (as I refer to it as) ^$B!Ha(Bmy little angel0$B!ID(B that is implanted in my chest. Please feel free to pass on our thoughts to anyone else concerned in this project at your end. Thanking you in advance. Gus Sevastianos Gus G. Sevastianos Director of Leasing and Marketing New Boston ^$B!~0(B Citimark Citimark Management Co., Inc. 8604 Allisonville Road, Suite 250 Indianapolis, IN 46250 gu ss@ci ti m arkin c. com 317-577-7900 (Office) 317-577-79] 0 (FAX) 317-513-9802 (Mobile) www.ciTimarkinc.com 9/12/2008