HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-22-99CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FEBRUARY 22, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel /Clay Board of Zoning Appeals was called
to order by the President at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: James Quinn; Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf; and Tom Yedlick.
Steve Engelking, Director, Terry Jones, and Mark Monroe were present representing the
Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Counsel, was also in attendance.
The minutes of the January 25, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns
a) John Molitor reported on Senate Bill 215 that affects notice and appeal
provisions that apply to proposals for Telecommunications Towers. The Bill has passed
the Senate and is currently in the House; counsel will continue to monitor.
b) Election of Officers
Charles Weinkauf was elected president for the coming year by Unanimous Consent.
Earlene Plavchak was elected vice president for the coming year by Unanimous Consent.
H. Public Hearing:
lh. Carmel Centerpoint Sign (V- 54 -98)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section
25.7.02 -11 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow tenant identification on
the proposed center identification signs. The site is located at the northeast corner
of Carmel Drive and Executive Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. (The
petitioner has appeared before the Plan Commission and has received
Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage approval.)
Filed by Richard Henderson of the Schneider Corporation.
Richard Henderson of Schneider Corporation, 3020 North Post Road, Indianapolis
appeared before the Board seeking a developmental standards variance to allow multiple
tenant names on an identification sign rather than a single name. There is an existing
sign with the name "Executive Commons" that would be replaced with new signage. The
Carmel Plan Commission has reviewed the Architectural Design of the sign and the
petitioner has re- designed the sign.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 1
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
signage; none appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department had not reviewed this particular design of
sign; however, the sign is in keeping with the architectural character of the Carmel
Centerpointe complex and does not affect the variance request significantly. The
Department is recommending approval.
The petitioner stated that the existing brick on the sign will be eliminated, the foundation
will not change; the proposed sign will be fabricated aluminum.
Jim Quinn moved to request that Counsel draft a letter to the City Council regarding the
content clause of the Sign Ordinance; MOTION APPROVED 4 -0.
The Board was in favor of keeping the existing brick on proposed signage.
Jim Quinn moved for the approval of V- 54 -98, Carmel Centerpointe Sign.
APPROVED 4 -0.
2h. Cinergy Sign (V -1 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of developmental standards variances of Section
25.7.02 -8 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the
allowable height of a ground sign from 6 feet to 8 feet and to allow an increase in
the allowable size from 95 square feet to 101 square feet. The site is located at
the northeast corner of 116 Street and Guilford Avenue. The site is zoned I-
1/Industrial.
Filed by Todd Ruetz of Campbell Kyle and Proffitt.
NOTE: Pat Rice recused herself from discussion and voting on V -1 -99.
Todd Ruetz of Campbell Kyle and Proffitt appeared before the Board together with Bill
Wendling, attorney, and Anita Rogers of Cinergy. The petitioner is seeking to replace an
existint identification ground sign. The Cinergy office is located at the northeast corner
of 116' Street and Guilford; immediately to the north is a 20 acre tract owned by Cinergy
and reserved for a wildlife habitat. The southeast corner of the 116 Street and Guilford
intersection is undeveloped as well as the ground on the northwest corner of the
intersection. The proposed signage will be located approximately 50 feet from the right
of -way of Guilford and approximately 60 feet from the right -of -way of 116 Street.
The variances being requested are for height requirement, and an increase in size.
According to the current Sign Ordinance, the property is allowed two signs, one on 116
Street, and one on Guilford. The petitioner is requesting approval of a slightly larger sign
and is committing to only one ground identification sign.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 2
The petitioner is requesting an increase of 6 square feet in the sign and two feet above the
allowable six feet in height. The proposed sign will be at the exact location of the
existing sign and will not interfere with line of sight.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
signage; none appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Sign Ordinance is believed to be adequate and the
Department is recommending denial. However, if the Board chooses to approve the
petitioner's request, it is recommended that the Board require a commitment limiting one
sign only on the property.
Mr. Quinn was opposed to the petitioner's request for a larger and taller sign, since
everyone is aware of Cinergy as a business. Mr. Quinn was in favor of upholding the
integrity of the ordinance.
Mr. Yedlick was definitely opposed to the height variance.
Mr. Quinn moved for the approval of V -1 -99, Cinergy Sign. NO DECISION VOTE (1
in favor, Quinn and Yedlick opposed.) This item is eligible to be heard at the March
Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
NOTE: The following Items 3h., 4h., 5h., and 6h. were heard together and voted on
separately.
3h. Hampton Inn Hotel Hamilton Crossing East (SU -2 -99)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to allow a hotel use within a B -3 /Business
District. The site is located at the southeast corner of 126 Street and U.S. 31.
The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone.
(The petitioner will also be appearing before the Plan Commission for
Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage
approval.)
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
4h. Hampton Inn Hotel Hamilton Crossing East (V -3 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 14.4.2
of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to decrease the minimum front yard
setback requirement from 60 feet to 15 feet. The site is located at the southeast
corner of 126 Street and U.S. 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located
within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. (The petitioner will also be appearing before
the Plan Commission for Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage approval.)
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 3
5h. Hampton Inn Hotel (V -4 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section
25.7.08 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow two signs on building
frontages not facing a public street. The site is located at the southeast corner of
126 Street and U.S. 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the
U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. (The petitioner will also be appearing before the Plan
Commission for Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage approval.)
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
6h. Hampton Inn Hotel Hamilton Crossing East (V- 10 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 14.4.1
of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to increase the allowable height of the hotel
from 35 feet to 60 feet. The site is located at the southeast corner of 126 Street
and U.S. 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the U.S. 31
Overlay Zone. (The petitioner will also be appearing before the Plan Commission
for Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and
Signage approval.)
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
Philip Nicely, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis appeared before the Board
representing the petitioner. Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans was present as
well as Gary Schahet, owner, Schahet Hotels.
The petitioner is proposing the construction of a 5 story hotel to be located at Hamilton
Crossing East Development. The petitioner is also requesting special use approval and
certain variances from developmental standards with respect to height, setback and
signage. The property is located at the south end of Hamilton Crossing East complex and
is zoned B -3; the property immediately to the north is zoned B -2 and has been approved
for retail development. The access to the hotel is provided through the shopping area,
and there is no direct access onto Pennsylvania Street. All of the property is within the
U.S. 31 Overlay Zone.
The petitioner has appeared before the Plan Commission -the only concern was the color
of the signage and this is to be reviewed at Committee on March 2nd
All rooms in the hotel are on the second through fifth floor; the first floor consists of a
lobby, indoor pool, exercise room, and an area where a cold breakfast can be served,
however there is no restaurant. The building is situated over 300 feet from US 31 and the
setback is approximately 15 feet from the newly proposed right -of -way for Pennsylvania
Street. The actual setback is consistent with the setback requirements of B -2 zoning and
also consistent with those setbacks desired by the Old Meridian Task Force. The
petitioner is also providing a 45 foot right -of -way along Pennsylvania Street.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 4
Under the current ordinance, two signs, perhaps three depending on street frontages,
would be permitted. The petitioner is requesting two identification signs, one to be
located on the north facia of the building and one sign to be located on the south facia.
The sizes of the signs would be identical.
The building is primarily brick, glass and dryvit, and an upscale building. The style of
architecture is consistent with the shopping area to the north. The City Council will be
considering an amendment to the zoning ordinance that will allow greater building
heights along U.S. 31 and smaller front yard setbacks along Pennsylvania Street. It is the
petitioner's position that the proposed building will add another dimension to the corridor,
will help stimulate development in the corridor, will blend well with over development in
the corridor and will be compatible. The adjoining area will not be adversely affected by
the development and will probably increase values of adjoining property.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that on item 3h., the Department is recommending approval.
Items 4h. and 5h. regarding setback and height variances are also recommended for
approval. The Department is recommending denial of the sign related variances; the sign
ordinance is adequate to allow two signs for this particular hotel and provides adequate
identification from U.S. 31 and Pennsylvania Street.
Jim Quinn moved for the approval of Hampton Inn Hotel, Special Use Permit SU -2-
99. APPROVED 4 -0.
Mr. Quinn asked that items 4h. and 6h. be considered concurrently; Mr. Quinn was
concerned with the process. Mr. Quinn's position was that if the variances were granted,
the Board, in effect, would be rezoning the property. Mr. Nicely responded to Mr.
Quinn's comments and there was further discussion.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of Hampton Inn Hotel, V -3 -99, to decrease the
minimum front yard setback requirement. APPROVED 4 -0.
Tom Yedlick moved for the approval of Hampton Inn Hotel, V- 10 -99, to increase the
allowable height of the hotel from 35 feet to 60 feet. APPROVED 3 in favor, Jim Quinn
opposed.
Gary Schahet addressed the Board stating that this is not a typical Hampton Inn and not
readily recognized by the building; there is no intent to request additional signs at a future
date. The petitioner agreed to return to the Plan Commission with an alternative to the
standard Hampton red signage. Currently, the signage being requested is on the north
and south facade of the building (other than exempt directional signs.)
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 5
Mr. Nicely agreed to submit a written commitment to limit the number of signs according
to the proposed variance, and the size under the Ordinance (45 ft allowable on
Pennsylvania and 55 ft on U.S. 31.)
Jim Quinn moved for the approval of Hampton Inn Hotel, V -4 -99, contingent upon
the receipt of a written commitment, satisfactory to the Department, to allow the
specified two signs on building frontages not facing a public street, and safety
related and directional signs. APPROVED 3 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed.
NOTE: Items 7h. and 8h. were heard together and voted on separately.
7h. First Indiana Bank (V -5 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 19.4.2
of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to decrease the minimum front yard
setback from 25 feet to 12 feet along Merchants' Square Drive and from 25 feet to
5 feet along AAA Way. The site is located at the southwest corner of AAA Way
and Merchants' Square Drive. The site is located at the southwest corner of AAA
Way and Merchants' Square Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. (The
petitioner has appeared before the Plan Commission and has received
Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage approval.)
Filed by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission.
8h. First Indiana Bank (V -6 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of developmental standards variances of Section
25.7.02 -8 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow two additional signs on
building frontages not facing a public street and to allow an increase in the
allowable size of signs facing the north and the east from 45 square feet to 53
square feet. The site is located at the southwest corner of AAA Way and
Merchants' Square Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business. (The petitioner has
appeared before the Plan Commission and has received Architectural Design,
Lighting, Landscaping and Signage approval.)
Filed by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission.
Rick Roesch, Spruce Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board as president of the
Carmel Redevelopment Commission and on behalf of First Indiana Bank. The
Redevelopment Commission was instrumental in helping with the redevelopment of
Merchants Square and creating a "TIF" to provide funds for the construction of roads and
infrastructure, and also provided for the dedication of roads within the development as
public roads.
First Indiana has had a branch bank at its present site for approximately 30 years and is
the owner of the property. First Indiana's location has parking to the front of its building,
the drive through does not easily work with the bank's existing location, the City desires
that the roads within Merchants Square be dedicated to the public. The City Engineer
does not favor the off -set at the intersection of Medical Drive and AAA Way which
currently exists but would not occur if the First Indiana Bank were moved. First Indiana
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 6
Bank is an older structure, but remains a high volume, successful branch, and does not
need to be re -built in order to continue to be successful.
The re- working of AAA Way was detrimental to the Bank. Sufficient property did not
exist for the Bank to be re -built with a drive through and at the same time, have AAA
Way square up with Medical Drive. In order for the Bank to continue to exist and the
intersection squared, it was necessary for additional property to be acquired to the south.
and a new facility to be built.
The Redevelopment Commission met with First Indiana and negotiated an agreement
whereby the Redevelopment Commission would acquire a portion of First Indiana's
property, and First Indiana would acquire the necessary property to the south in order to
have a site sufficient for a bank. First Indiana would then raze the existing facility and
construct a new facility with a drive through that would not cause a blockage of traffic.
However, the end result is not something desirable because of the traffic flow pattern.
First Indiana was willing to sell the land to the City to square up the roads, demolish the
existing building and construct a new building and acquire ground to the north to have
sufficient room to accomplish new construction. The Bank also expressed a willingness
to consider acquisition of a site within the City Center under certain conditions.
The Redevelopment Commission has agreed to support First Indiana in obtaining the
necessary approvals for the construction of the branch bank, including the variance
necessary to allow signs on either side of the building. The petitioner is asking approval
at this time.
Philip Nicely, 8888 Keystone Crossing, appeared before the Board representing First
Indiana Bank in their request for variances of developmental standards in connection with
the construction of a new facility for First Indiana Bank. Also in attendance was Nancy
Wright, manager of First Indiana Bank in Carmel.
The redevelopment of Merchants Square was done without consultation with First
Indiana Bank. The AAA Way and Merchants Square Drive offset intersection has been a
concern with the City Engineer because of the dedication of the roads to the public and
the traffic hazard.
A plan has been formulated for the redevelopment of the property by First Indiana Bank;
at the same time, the proposed plan will resolve the offset intersection. The plan
involved acquisition of property to the south of the Bank and conveyance of certain
property to the Redevelopment Commission to allow aligning the intersection. The plan
required ADLS approval that was approved at the last Plan Commission meeting.
The variances will allow a decrease in the minimum front yard setback to 12 feet along
Merchants Square Drive and to 5 feet along AAA Way. Due to the size of the lot and the
amount of parking required, the building will be one -story and half the original square
footage. Approval is also being requested for the installation of two additional
identification signs facing the north and the east from 45 square feet to 53 square feet.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 7
The Bank will have frontage on AAA Way, but the actual front of the bank now faces
west. There will be no parking directly in front of the building. The petitioner believes
that the variances will not be detrimental to public health or safety, and will actually
result in a much safer intersection. The redevelopment of the Bank will provide a
building that is more in accord with the architecture of Merchants Square. The
redevelopment will also eliminate a serious safety hazard with the intersection of
Merchants Square Drive and AAA Way, provide for a drive -thru that will not be
detrimental to traffic flow, and will be beneficial to all parties concerned.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval of both variance
requests. The Plan Commission approved the ADLS application at its January meeting.
Tom Yedlick questioned the size of the signs on the north and east elevations that are not
nearly as wide as those on the south and west elevations and looks disproportionate to
that elevation. Mr. Yedlick was not in favor of two different size signs on four elevations
of building.
Mr. Nicely responded that the west elevation is actually the back of the building and the
front entrance of the bank.
There was considerable discussion among the Board members regarding precedent
setting decisions and past variances granted within the Merchants Square development.
Mr. Nicely stated that all four signs will be illuminated; the Bank president is very
adamant about the request for the four signs and unfortunately, he (Mr. Melton) could not
be here this evening. The possibility of tabling the Signage was discussed; Mr. Nicely
was agreeable to tabling.
Pat Rice moved to table V -6 -99 until the March meeting. This motion was withdrawn
and the petitioner formally requested that the Board table V -6 -99, First Indiana Bank,
until the March 22n meeting; the Board concurred. TABLED until March.
Jim Quinn moved to approve Docket No. V -5 -99 First Indiana Bank, variance for
minimum front yard setback. APPROVED 4 -0.
NOTE: Items 9h. and 10h. were heard together.
9h. Ameritech Telecommunications Tower (SE -7 -99)
Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to allow a telecommunications tower
in a residential zoning district. The site is located just south of the intersection of
131 Street and Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Matt Price of McHale Cook and Welch.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 8
10. Ameritech Telecommunications Tower (V -8 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 26.1.4
of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the allowable height
of the tower in a residential zoning district from 120 feet to 130 feet. The site is
located just south of the intersection of 131s Street and Cherry Tree Road. The
site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Matt Price of McHale Cook and Welch.
Matt Price of McHale Cook and Welch, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board
representing the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking approval for a telecommunications
tower. Ameritech's wireless network is comprised of a series of cells and is a currently
existing PCS network launched last July in Indiana and provides state -of -the -art digital
wireless communications capability to the City.
Ameritech participated in the development of Carmel's zoning ordinance pertaining to
Telecommunications Towers. Mr. Price reviewed the current locations of tower sites that
utilize existing tall structures, i.e. water towers, co- location of other approved towers, or
roof tops of tall buildings. Under the Ordinance, communications towers are to be
located on existing, tall structures.
The current proposal is for a 130 foot monopole and includes an accessory building.
Access to the site is the driveway for the Carmel Dad's Club facility, across the existing,
paved parking lot, and winds up at a 50X50 parcel that will be leased from the Carmel
Dad's Club. Mr. Price stated the existence of a substantial row of trees around the eastern
perimeter of the site, a woods, and a residential subdivision known as Carrington Woods
to the south. According to Mr. Price, the proposed facility is 1200 feet from 131s Street,
over 850 feet from the south property line, the required distance from the east and west
property lines. Mr. Price stated that this particular site was chosen because it is well
removed from existing residential uses.
Under the current location of communications towers, there is a "hole" in a place where
there are very few tall structures to choose from of any kind. Mr. Price explained that the
towers interface with one another and cannot be too close or too far apart or the network
does not work. There is an existing, 120 foot monopole structure at the Carmel water
treatment facility, zoned B -3, built by Sprint PCS, in 1997. At present, there are two
communication carriers on this particular monopole, Cell One and Sprint, as well as the
City of Carmel which has radio equipment on the tower. By Ameritech's investigation,
the tower is filled to capacity from its top to a 50 foot level. The Northview Christian
Life Church has several high peaks, however, the Church simply does not want the
communications tower on their property and this is not a viable alternative. Ameritech is
proposing to build a new tower due to the fact that towers in the area are not available to
them at a height that would allow them to serve their customers.
The petitioner's proposal will allow for a co- location and they are willing to make a
commitment, under the ordinance, to provide for additional carriers to locate on the
facility, including municipal uses, school uses, or emergency communications uses.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 9
The monopole is an unmanned facility with quarterly maintenance visits, it is not lighted,
it will not have any impact on traffic, and it will not affect surrounding property uses.
Ed Domenski, RF Engineer with Ameritech in Indianapolis, appeared before the Board to
illustrate the coverage expected, level of signal energy, and coverage from neighboring
sites if approval is obtained for the proposed tower location.
In closing, Mr. Price stated that Ameritech is the first wireless carrier to come through
under the Ordinance requesting a Special Exception. Ameritech is seeking guidance as to
the best way to satisfy their radio frequency needs consistent with the dictates of the
Ordinance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed communications
towers; no one appeared.
Mr. Quinn interjected that some materials have not been included in the submission and
the Department is unable to form an opinion based upon the lack of requested or required
materials. Mr. Quinn asked that the petitioner submit requested materials prior to the
next meeting, and that public comment may be affected. Therefore, Mr. Quinn
commented that the Board may wish to leave the public hearing open.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department does not wish to preclude any public input at
this time and defers to public comments.
Mr. Weinkauf invited members of the public to speak in opposition to the proposed
communications towers based on what has been heard to date, and if the proposal is
continued to a future date, public hearing will be held open and remonstrance will again
be allowed. The following persons appeared:
John Gabbert, 5200 Carrington Circle, stated opposition to the special exception in a
residential area. Any granting of the Special Exception would establish a dangerous
precedent for Carmel. An approval would give advantage to one corporation over a
competitive. Allowing this type of tower in a residential area is a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Gabbert also felt that the tower would diminish the aesthetic appeal of the area and
devalue homes. Mr. Gabbert stated that the tower is unnecessary and other alternatives
could be explored that would not endanger residential areas.
Terry Hecht, 5180 Carrington Circle, stated opposition to the tower and was under the
impression that the Sprint Tower had already set a precedent. The existing tower near the
Carmel water facility is thought to have more communications capacity. The proposed
tower would also affect the Timber Lake Subdivision. The proposed tower, although not
itself illuminated, will be lit by the surrounding baseball lights at the proposed location.
Tom Kukla, 5196 Carrington Circle, stated opposition to the tower. The baseball lights
will indeed light the proposed tower that will be taller than the baseball lights- -the tower
will be clearly visible. Mr. Kukla was also opposed to this particular tower because of
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 10
the others that were sure to follow. Mr. Kukla commented that a better location for the
tower would be the recreational park at 1 26 and River Road; there are no homes in that
area. The Carmel Dad's Club will be collecting rent on the proposed tower. According
to Mr. Kukla, the Carmel Dad's Club failed to install a retention pond due to a lack of
funds, and as a result, Mr. Kukla and three neighbors have water in their back yard. Mr.
Kukla was not a peace with the thought of Carmel Dad's Club collecting rent on the
tower facility and not taking care of the water problem.
Mr. Price stated that the way the system is designed, there is a hole in the coverage
between Fishers and the Carmel Water Tower site. The existing structure is not a
question of capacity; the height is not sufficient to serve their needs. Mr. Price asked for
direction as to the exact materials to be submitted for the application to be deemed
complete.
Mr. Weinkauf stated that the issue of towers has come before the Board previously. The
communications issue is not just a concern of Carmel but communities throughout the
country. To a certain extent, the licenses granted by the Federal Communications
Commission somewhat "tie the hands" of municipalities, boards, etc. There are a lot of
considerations to be looked at.
Mark Monroe commented that the application, as presented to the Department, met the
met the basic minimum requirements. The petitioner has presented how the proposed
site would work for them but has not been presented is why some of the other sites in the
area may not work, such as the aforementioned church site or the local park.
Jim Quinn asked that copies of the pertinent section of the Ordinance be furnished to the
Board and perhaps an explanation from the Department of what the Board should be
looking for. Cellular facilities are not regulated in the same manner as other utilities.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending that this item be tabled until
the next meeting. The Department is looking for graphic information from an engineer as
to why the antennae cannot be located on an existing structure or tower in the general
area or perhaps another site that may be more appropriate. The burden of proof is still on
the petitioner.
Ms. Rice asked that language be added to the statement of non interference, words such
as "and /or radio frequency generated by this facility, that 11 will not have any negative
impact on the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the immediate vicinity of this
tower."
Jim Quinn moved to table Docket Nos. SE -7 -99 and V -8 -99 until such time as the
Department feels it has received adequate information that would make its return to
Board consideration germane. TABLED 4 -0.
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 11
The public hearing will remain open on Ameritech Telecommunications Tower, Docket
No. SE -7 -99 and V -8 -99.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:55 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
s:\minutes \bza \1999feb 12