Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - GeneralDYNAIWIIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. -..-_ A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRM Bv: Certified Mail Mayor James Brainard City of Carmel, City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Invitation to Comment American Tower Corporation Tower Site -Bikiboke IN (No. 272585) Carmel, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana DEA No. 20901039 Dear Mayor Brainard: February 18, 2009 American Tower Corporation is proposing to construct a telecommunications tower in Hamilton County, Indiana. At this time, Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc. (DEA) is conducting a Section 106 Review to assess the potential impact this proposed project may have on historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As part of the Section 106 Review process, we are inquiring whether you have any knowledge of historic resources that may be affected by the project and/or whether you wish to comment on this proposed project. Details on the proposed facility are presented below. Site Name: Bikiboke IN (No. 272585) Address or Location: 11104 Towne Road Parcel Number: 17-13-OS-00-00-012.000 City, County, State: Carmel, Clay Township, Hamilton County, IN 46032 Latitude: N39-56-57.5 Longitude: W86-12-18.3 Approximate Ground Elevation: 879' AMSL Proposed Project Description The tower is proposed to be a Flagpole design and 125' tall. The Section 106 Review being conducted includes the assessment of the proposed tower and a 115' x 115' area, which includes the proposed lease area and a 30' wide buffer area, as well as the proposed 600' x 20' access/utility easement. 38511 Lake Stree[, Suite C, Macon, GA 31204 Phone (478) 745-7740 • Fax (478) 745-7415 City of Carmel -2- February 18,.2009 In addition to contacting you, please be advised that we have also requested comments from the following parties: Hamilton County Carmel Clay Historical Society Hamilton County Historical Society Indiana Historical Society General Public via published Public Notice The findings of our Section 106 Review will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in the near future for their review. Therefore, we respectfully request receiving your comments within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding the proposed development or wish to discuss this project in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us. Your assistance is greatly appreciated and we look forward to hearing from you even if you should decide that this Project is of no interest to you. Very truly yours, Dynamic Environmental Associates, 1 c. ~`~ ~--,sue--- Virginia M. Ja ss Principal Archaeologist Contact Information: Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc. 3850 Lake Street, Suite C Macon, GA 31204 Phane:(478) 745-7740 Fax: (478) 745-7415 E-mail: Sec106@DynamicEnvironmental.com enc: 20901039 -City Letter THRASHER llUSCHMANN GRIFFITH dLVOELKEL, P.C. ATTORNF.V$ AT LAW STEPHEN R. BUSCHMANN, ESQ. Auschmann(a~i ndiana-ettornZys.COm January 22, 2009 Mr. Bryan H. Babb, Esq BOSE MCKINNEY BC EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis; IN 46204 P.E: Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners & City of Carmel Dear Bryan: A couple of questions have arisen with regard to the interpretation of Pazagraph 1(i) of the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated into duly adopted Ordinance C263A. This letter expresses our positions with regard to that pazagraph. l . Are the provisions of Paragraph I (i) limited to changes in zoning, as opposed [o changes brought about by variances, special uses, etc.? Our answer is NO. paragraph 1(i) encompasses two concepts: (l) "no changes should be made in the Annexation "1'crritory that will create a housing density of greater than one unit per acre"; and (2) "nn choges in the zoning district for property in the Annexation Territory outside the commercial corridor along the Michigan Road district should be made." Nothing in either of these two restrictive provisions states that they aze limited to changes in zoning classification. Both restrictions state "no changes" which would include changes in zoning, variances, special uses etc. The selection of the defined term "Zoning Changes" is perhaps inappropriate, but the actual restrictive language is not limited to just zoning. Therefore it is our opinion that any "changes" including zoning, vaziances, special uses etc. [hat would alter the large lodestate residential nature of Southwest Clay (outside the commercial corridor) would be covered by the restrictions of Paragraph 1(i). 2. Do the provisions of-Paragraph 1(i) preclude the BZA from properly considering a request for a change in zoning, use etc within the Annexation Territory? Our answer is NO. Paragraph 1(i) states: "Carmel will fulfill its legal obligation to give due consideration to any properly submitted request for a Coning Change, but Carmel also recognizes that Zoning Changes in the annexation territory would, in general, not be in the public interest prior to the time when the review and revisions of the Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan a has been completed and voters in the Annexation Territory have representation on the Council." When Cannel adopted Ordinance C-263A, Carmel recognized a higher standazd i n the Annexation Territory that creates a strong presumption that a proposed change is not in the public interest, for the period of time extending from the effective date of PRACTICAL ADVICE. PERSONAL ATTEN710N. ISI N. D4LAWARE ST. SUITE 1700 INDIANAPOLIS. IN 4G1U443U3 P: 31Zo8An773 F: 31 i.(i8G.4Ti7 WWW.INDIANA-A'ITORNEVS.COM Bryan H. Babb, Esy. January 22,2009 Page 2 the Ordinanoe until January 1, 2012, This strong presumption is somewhat like a designated critical area in a comprehensive plan. A petitioner is not precluded from presenting evidence to try to rebut the presumption and the BZA is not precluded from considering that evidence. However, there is clearly a higher standard [o be applied before the BZA could approve any change. We hope this clarifies our position as to the application of Paragraph 1(i) over the next three (3) years. Very truly yours, THRASHER BUSCHMANN ('rRIFFITH SL VOELKEL, P.C. ~5teph~R. Buschmann~~ cc: NOAX Board Page 1 of 1 Brian Ramirez From: AI Patterson [awp@co.hamilton.in.us] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:45 PM To: Derek McGrew Subject: Coxhall Gardens and Cell Towers Derek, This email is to confirm our earlier conversation. We did at one time consider cell towers at Coxhall Gardens but decided against it. Thanks for your inquiry. AI Allen W. Patterson, CPRP, CPSI Director Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department 15513 S. Union St Carmel, IN 46033-9445 317-770-4401(office) 317-896-3256 (fax) 317-714-7088 (mobile) awp@co.hamilton.in. us 12/9/2008 From: TPPUP@aol.com [mailto:TPPUP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:51 PM To: Derek McGrew Subject: Re: Coxhall Gardens -Bell Tower I have forwarded this request of information to AI Patterson, Parks director. I believe it was discussed, and turn down. It was not the desire of the board to have a tower in the park of any kind. Terry Prather Board President Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Trv it now. • to-a~-o ov, Tcn.,3w~. ~ oaf. _ -r_-~.e,,r ~7_e~,y S_c.D_.o-c~ ~ - ~~_ `Yrnw-e.._.s.~F ~_r_~.-,_o,.~ h.~R~:,...dZ.._d~.~u~ Sa.ke.." s; -. ~ _5o~,_ i_d--i_5-lb~.oc~ceoe ~i~w._view_ Goi~ q ~ a~W-cu.~-Q-dL ~ ~Y~ lv/~e,-f-o~.~ ~w ..a.. o_»_l a~F ~_o~ t~ ~ ~-~`~ _ _ _ y_ , / 3~ ~_ _ i_ _ o_~ ~~.-cQ a:~e. 1.5-oh- . V~-~,a~s ! S ~ - - ~- ~ ~ t,~_r';d$ev. ~-~o_.Se_ti.c.l.l ~-o-rec~d_~_. -_ .... ..e... .~~ ocp,c,uvc, East Hampton Tow is o of a handful of municipalities nano ~ ids az is preparing a "wireles's master plan as on performance standards, rather than zoning districts, to des- ignate where wireless facilities are allowed. Once adopted, the towels plan will permit wireless facilities in all zoning districts, pro- vided the performance standards are met. These standards include visibility and safety measures incorporating siting, height, mass, color, and concealment. Along with the draft standards comes athree-tiered application pro- cess. New applications that tnee[ the stan- dards will receive expedited simple reviews, either tier one or two, whereas proposals that conflict with the standards will be subject to a more rigorous and lengthy review, known as a tier three review. As of July, East Hampron's drafr wireless plan had been completed but not yet adopted. An implementation plan including draft leg- islation is now being developed, and public hearings on the draft plan are targeted for this fall. Away out- Located at the far eastern tip of Long Island, East Hampton (year-round population 20,000) has a prosperous resort economy based largely on its exceptional natural and scenic qualities. Unsightly communications towers could threaten these treasured qualities by under- miningthe character of the world-class beaches, bucolic farmland, waterside restaurants, and historic town centers. By 2000, it was obvious the town needed help. It faced a bumper crop of applications for new wireless communications sites-and the likelihood of vociferous public opposition to [hem, given the town's recent history. East Hampton decided to hire the Tiburon, Cali- fornia, firm of Kreines and Kreines, Inc., to prepare a wireless master plan. _ Some municipalities have tried to reject all new cell towers, but East Hampton planners knew that wasn't an option under the Tele- Reading. See Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America, by James B. Murray, Jr., Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001. Vendor Kreines &Kreines, Tiburon, Cali- fornia:415-435-9214; www.planwiteless. tom. communications Act of 1996. Communities are obliged to deal with the problems of technology as well as its merits. According to Marguerite Wolffsohn, now East Hampton's planning director, "Most technological innovations, with the excep- tion of nuclear energy, have been embraced by society without question. Only after we see an indelible change to our landscape do we generally stop to think about alternatives. Here in East Hampton, we warned a better understanding of the industry in order to develop proper regulations and alternatives to unsightly towers." Once Kreines and Kreines came on board, East Hampton planners and officials learned their fears were well founded. According to the consultants, each of the 10 competing wireless facility carriers in town might uhi- matelyneed a faciliryevery 250 feet in order to accommodate 3G services (third genera- tion) in developed areas. This projection is not unique to East Hamp- ton. Two years ago, the New York Times predicted that as many as one million cell sites would be installed "by the time technol- ogycompanies reached their desired capacity for wireless data and voice transmission." That number would represent a tenfold in- crease over the number of towers in use last year. Moving forward To reduce the number of unsightly towers, East Hampton officials had originally favored co-location, or the sharing of a tower by more than one company. Then they learned that an unintended consequence ofco-location is taller, more visible towers-and no reduction in the need for additional wireless facilities. Experi- ence has shown that once a tower goes up, is never comes down, even though the [op- mos[position on atower often remains empty. Based on the premise tha[ many more wireless facilities will be needed and that co- loration does not decrease visibility or the number of towers, East Hampton's draft wire- lessplan provides standards for visibility, health, and safety, such as: Siting. Placement within trees is encour- aged, but no antennas can be extended more than 10 feet above average nee height. Also, placement on existing roofs or non-wireless structures is Favored over ground-mounted wireless facilities. Design: Ground-mounted lattice cowers and ground-mounted guyed towers are discour- aged. The size of the facility should be kept to a minimum, and the color ofground-mounted facilities should blend with the natural sur- roundings (sky or trees). Height. Height should be kept to the mini- mumand in no case may it exceed the highest nearby structures. If there is no building within 300 horizontal feet, the wireless facility should be surrounded by dense tree growth. Finally, ground-mounted structures may not project more than 10 feet above the average tree line. Enhancement. Landscaping or natural veg- erationshould eliminate or mitigate the facili- ties'visual impact. The wireless industry usually applies for ground-mounted facilities on monopoles, lat- tice towers, or guyed towers. However, some alternatives, such as roofrop mounts, are less vis wally intrusive. The East Hampton wireless master plan calls far the applicant to undergo an alternative analysis ro reduce visual im- pacts, if proposing one of [he three most visible types of mounts. Safely and health standards Akhough there is an ongoing scientific debate over the health risk from exposure to radio frequency radiation (RPR) emitted from wireless transmitters, the Federal Communications Commission has established guidelines, based on Section 704 of the Telecommunications Ln East Hampton, the antennas on a fish off-loading building look like boat masts. The town i draft wirelers plan says this design is preferable toground-mounted towers. 33 Act of 1996, that categorically exempt many facilities from regulation aimed at reducing radio frequency exposure, including antennas more than l0 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level. If the facilities comply with the guidelines, the law further prohibits municipalities from regulating the placement, construction, or modification ofwireless facilities. In East Hamp- ton, an applicant for atr antenna lower than 32.8 feet above ground level will be required to submit data From a radio frequency engi- neer certifying that the radio frequency emit- ted will mee[ federal standards. Other safety measures addressed in East Hamptods wireless plan include structural standards for tall mounts and towers; mini- mum fall zones prohibiting habitable struc- tures within the distance equal to twice the rower's height; railings on buildings or struc- tures that have roof-mounted facilities; and registering the hazardous materials commonly stored or used on the wireless facility site with the appropriate fire district and hazardous materials office. As it prepares the legislation needed to implement its wireless plan, East Hampton has watched at least one other community move ahead. The nearby Town of Smithtown (population 116,0000) consulted with the East Hampmn planning department, and in 2000 it hired Kreines and ICreines, adopted a wireless plan, and implemented legislation. "We were inundated with applications for permission to erect humongous monopole _ell towers in our neighborhoods, causing much community upset," says Frank DeRubeis, the Smithmwn planning director "We were further hampered in aaempting to deal with the FCC's directives, and we did not under- stand the techmlogy. Our wireless master plan, based on performance standards, helped as resolve these `problems and helped us pre- pare aclear, simple ordinance to address the [natter." When compared to standard zoning prac- tices, performance standards such as those in imithtown and East Hampton may prove !itvaluable. Lisa Liguori, A7CP siquori served as East Hampton's planning director 'ram 1986 ro 2001. She is now president of Fine Arts Y Sciences, LLC, a scientific, planning, and envima- nental land-use Firm with offices in East Hampton and New York City. access to the net," he says. Mcpartlan says that the number of access points needed for each building will vary, which is why a site survey, usually in con- cert with a Grained 802.11 professional, is so important. Greatly simplified, this sire survey involves installing one access point, and then walking around with an 802.11- equipped lapmp and seeing when coverage stops. At that point, another access point is placed. Different building materials will affect the distance 802.116 will [ravel. Mcpartlan notes that pre-World War II buildings often have chicken wire in their plas[er walls, `and that's definitely going m have an effect on how far the 802.11 signal can reach; i[ might require you m have more nodes instead ofless.° USC also expec[s to use 802.11 technol- ogy roreach buildings separated from the main campus. Ra[her than trenching tha[ distance for fiber-optics, or paying the phone company thousands of dollars a month, two 802.11 nodes can be used, with a compara- tivelylow one-[ime cost, to connect isolated locations. Overlarge dislanccs However, 802.116 is moving beyond the secu- rity of home, office, education, and "third place" markets. In addition to the coffeehouses, hotels, and airports that have Internet access via 802.116, whole city blocks and even small towns are gaining a wireless option as well. WiFi Metro is in Silicon Valley, as noted. Inutek.net is using 802.116 to provide similar coverage to small towns in Alaska, connecting customers to a satellite uplink for their Internet coverage. And NTT has recently announced plans to rest wide-scale 802.116 coverage in Tokyo. Disney World uses an 802.116 network to connect employees scattered all over its 47- square-mile theme park, and 3Com has ex- perimentedwith 802.116 ac Candles tick Park in San Francisco. Keep growing Several other challenges must be overcome for 802.116 to continue growing in popularity. Consumers need more coverage and coverage that doesn't require separate accounts with separate providers for each different locale. An answer may be on the way. The New York Times reported on July 16 that Intel, IBM, AT&T Wireless, Verizon Communications, Cingular, and other firms have formed a coa- lition to see if a national 802.116 network is financially viable. For network admini rat s, wireless net- workspresentevengreat rse riryissuesthan hard wired ones. That y a variety of methods should be considered to eliminate unauthorized use. A virtual private network (VPN) is a good firs[ step, and Internet secu- rity exper[s can suggest many others. As the consumer and security issues are overcome, wireless zones can offer munici- palities a variety of benefits. The ability to move a company into a building and have it easily networked; the ease of setting up home networks in awireless-enabled com- munity; and the attraction of having even hisroric resorts with up-to-the-minute tech- nologies available make wireless an impor- tanttool. With 802.11, the World Wide Web soon may not only be global, but entirely mobile as well. Ed Driscoll is a wrier in San Jose, California, who covers the lnrerne[ and consumer electronics. On the web. Institute of Electrical and Elec- tronicsEngineers: www.ieee.org. White paper on deploying 802.116 in an enterprise ^et- work: vvww.dell.com. Tips on exploiting and protecting 802.116 wireless networks: www.extremetech.com. Web log: http:// 802.1 lb.webloggeccom. Website with news and links: wvvw.80211-plane[.com. The Wire- IessEthernet Compatibility Alliance: www.wi- fi.org. Ara interactive guide to finding local 802.11 hot spots: www.80211hotspots.com. The firm that has added 802.116 to Star- bucks coffeehouses, airpo¢s, and hotels: www.tmobilebroadband.com. Another firm tha[ has wired up hotels and airports: www.wayporrcom. The Bluetooth site: www.bluetooth.com. Definitions. Two brand new standards have been established: 802.1 la, which extends the speed of 802.1 1 m 54 megabits a second but isn't backwards compatible with 802.11 b; and 802.11 g, which runs at 20 megabytes a second and is compatible. Until there is a pressing need for ultra-high-speed Internet access, or for a proprietary high-speed Ethernet net- work mallow exchange of very large files, 802.116 is going to remain the primary s[an- dard in most public places for [he next several years.