HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 10-26-99 Special MeetingH. Public Hearing:
CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
SPECIAL SESSION CELL TOWERS
OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Special Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals scheduled for October 26, 1999 was
called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; James Quinn; Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf;
and Tom Yedlick.
Terry Jones was present representing the Department of Community Services.
John Molitor stated that the Department of Community Services would be proposing
changes to the Board's Rules of Procedure to allow special provisions for handling this
type of petition on a 3 or 4 times per year basis.
Note: Items lh and 2h. were heard together.
lh. Sprint Tower (SE- 39 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Exception to allow a wireless
telecommunications tower in a residential zoning district. The site is located
southwest of the intersection of 141 Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-
1 /Residence.
Filed by Larry Wallace.
2h. Sprint Tower (V- 40 -99)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.13.1(6) of the
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction and operation of a
wireless telecommunications tower to accommodate two providers where four is
required by the Ordinance The site is located southwest of the intersection of
141s Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residence.
Filed by Larry Wallace.
James Buddenbaum, attorney with Parr, Richey, OBremsky and Morton, appeared before
the Board on behalf of Sprint Tower. Mr. Buddenbaum stated that as a result of
conversations with the landlord on the site, both petitions are being formally
WITHDRAWN and will not be pursued any further. However, in response to the
Department's request, Mr. Buddenbaum submitted a map of current sites, proposed sites,
and proposed dates for Sprint Towers.
Chuck Weinkauf explained to the public that the Department had asked all
telecommunications providers to submit a list of current locations and proposed locations.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 1
At some point in time, the Board will be faced with determining the location of cell
towers. There will be cell towers, either at the discretion of the Board or forced by a
Court of Law.
I. Old Business:
Note: Items li., 2i. and 3i. were heard together and voted on separately.
li. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (SE- 32 -99)
Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to allow a telecommunications tower
in a residential zoning district. The site is located at 2135 West 141 Street. The
site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
The public hearing on this item remains open.
Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan.
2i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (V- 33 -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 150 feet. The
site is located at 2135 West 141 Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
The public hearing on this item remains open.
Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan.
3i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower V- 34 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
26.5.2.17 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the tower to be located
within 100 feet of a parcel used for residential purposes. The site is located at
2135 West 141 Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
The public hearing on this item remains open.
Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan.
Note: Items 4i. and 5i., Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower, 10851 Hazel Dell
Parkway, (SE -35 -99 and V- 36 -99) were TABLED at the request of the Petitioner.
Jim Burroughs, attorney with Ice, Miller, Donadio Ryan, One American Square, Suite
3400, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board representing Omnipoint Communications
and Unisite, Inc. Unisite, Inc. strictly builds and manages telecommunications towers;
Omnipoint is a license holder from the FCC to provide wireless communication services
in the Carmel area and throughout most of Indiana.
Pursuant to the Department's request, Mr. Burroughs had submitted a map to each
Commission member and the Department. The map shows existing Omnipoint locations
in Carmel and those proposed locations for the purpose of providing wireless service.
The majority of locations that Omnipoint has in the Carmel area are co- locations on
existing towers or other structures of height.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 2
Mr. Burroughs stated that the proposed tower on the "Tyner" property would be located
inside the woods. The nearest residence to the proposed tower is approximately 900 to
1,000 feet. There will be an access area leading to a compound, 70X70, and the trees will
be cleared and the tower erected. The petitioner is requesting an additional 30 feet to the
height of tower. The property owner is willing to preserve the trees for his lifetime but
did not want to burden his heirs with that decision. Mr. Tyner has signed an addendum to
the lease committing to the preservation of trees within 30 feet of the compound as long
as the antenna is in existence.
Mr. Burroughs referred to a report by appraiser, Mr. Will Stump, stating that other areas
in central Indiana where towers are located have not affected the value, selling price of
the property, and length of time on the market. The standard to consider is whether or
not there is a substantial adverse effect on the market value of homes in the area.
The need for the Special Exception arises from the applicant's responsibility to provide
public utility service and not from any condition peculiar to the premises under
consideration. The applicant is licensed by the FCC to provide reliable and adequate
telecommunications service and the location of the tower at this site is required by the
technical engineering requirements of the applicant's system to provide such service.
Harland Kaufman, RF Engineer for Omnipoint, 6215 Morenci Trail, Indianapolis,
addressed the Board. Mr. Kaufman located the proposed site on the map and went to a
one and two mile radius of the site to see what was available within that space to avoid
the entire zoning process. Currently, there is only a barn silo approximately 25 feet in
height within the radius of any substantial height. In short, there are no existing or
approved towers or other structures within the vicinity of the proposed location that
would be suitable for co- location of the equipment.
Mr. Burroughs stated that the approval of the Special Exception does not interfere
substantially with the Comprehensive Plan, in that there are no alternative sites suitable in
regard to the factors listed in 21.4.24 for the equipment. The applicant needs to locate in
the vicinity of a business, industrial manufacturing district, or on property outside the
jurisdiction that is otherwise exempt from the requirements of the ordinance. Public sites
such as parks, fire stations, other publicly owned property, etc. would be exempt from the
Ordinance. Mr. Burroughs circulated a series of e -mails between Mark Monroe and Pat
Mcllvenna, site acquisition manager. Mark Monroe's memo to Pat states that after
talking with the fire chief and the parks director, no public sites under their control are
thought to be available for a tower at this time.
In regard to the variance requesting relief from the Ordinance requirement that they not
be located within 100 feet of a property used for residential purposes, obviously Mr.
Tyner does not feel that the tower adversely affects his property value and he does not
have any objection. A taller tower will minimize the proliferation of towers, since 4
users would be required to co- locate on a tower. A tower of 120 feet rather than 150 feet
would impose practical difficulties.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 3
Jim Buddenbaum, attorney representing Sprint and Cellular One, offered some comments
to the Board and agreed with Mr. Burroughs' comments regarding the height of the tower.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition. Mr. Weinkauf
reminded the public that there is no debate on the potentially "perceived danger" of the
emission of radio waves that are injurious to the public. The following persons appeared:
Jeff Rysieck, 13743 Royal Saddle Drive, stated concern with possible decrease in
property values. Mr. Rysieck referred to comments made by an appraiser regarding
Greenwood property. There are two scenarios; one where the ground was developed
after the tower was in existence and development prior to the tower's existence. The
farther away the tower is from development, the higher a tower could be -but not in
someone's back yard. Mr. Rysieck asked about automobile traffic in the area of the tower
and stated that there should not be a high volume of traffic in the area.
Vickie Pryor, 2626 West 141s Street, Westfield, referred to a TV segment of 20/20 which
dealt with health issues and cell phones. Millions of people are viewing dangers of this
product on television, and when these people purchase homes, their perception will not
be what the FCC has dictated but rather what they see on television. Ms. Pryor stated
that a number of scientists had been interviewed and their comments centered around the
safety of cell phones and the fact that there are no studies directly relevant to the safety
issues of cell phones and documented evidence of risk. The body of research raises the
possibility of serious harm from extensive exposure to cell phones. Ms. Pryor was
concerned with property values and residences within close proximity of the towers.
According to Ms. Pryor, the accuracy of the TV broadcast was irrelevant perception is
everything. Clearly, there are highly educated people that have serious doubts about this
industry and the safety of the product. Ms. Pryor was in favor of locating cell towers in
commercial areas rather than residential.
Ms. Pryor stated that a court had upheld the idea that people who live near the cell towers
do have a right to have input into these decisions. Ms. Pryor again referred to a previous
court case in which Virginia Beach rules against AT &T Wireless stating that the decision
to deny the tower can be based upon the complaints of ordinary citizens that the tower
will damage the neighborhood. Denial of a tower request is not inherently
discriminatory, and the provisions of the Telecommunications Act do not prevent a city
from denying individual applications for approval.
Ms. Pryor also took exception to Mr. Burroughs' comment that approval of the tower
would not pose any injurious effect to health and public safety. In view of the position of
experts within the industry who are not willing to make a statement as to the safety of the
towers, it is outrageous that Mr. Burroughs could make that statement.
Jeff Stebbins, 13811 Royal Saddle Drive, stated that he was opposed to the cell tower for
a number of reasons, including financial hardship of surrounding homeowners. Mr.
Stebbins was also in favor of locating the towers out of Clay Township into the northwest
section where there is limited development thus far. If given the choice of lack of cell
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 4
coverage or maintaining his home property value, Mr. Stebbins stated he would choose
maintaining the property value of his home. Technology is changing, but Mr. Stebbins
did not look at the proposal as a viable solution.
Mark Rattermann, 11257 St. Andrews Lane, appeared before the Board as the president
of the Original Clay West Information Council homeowners association. Mr.
Rattermann reminded the Board that with the approval of the Village of West Clay is the
inclusion of a church, steeple, and commercially zoned property. At some future date,
the church steeple could possibly be utilized; Mr. Rattermann asked that someone
approach Brenwick Corporation about this possibility.
Corinne Watters, 141S Street, Westfield, agreed with all statements and comments made
previously by Ms. Pryor. Ms. Watters was annoyed that the property owner (Mr. Ms.
Tyner) was not in attendance and felt that it was cowardly of them not to be in attendance
to hear their neighbors comments and concerns. Ms. Watters gave kudos to Ms. Pryor for
everything she had done to oppose the tower. It was Ms. Watters' belief that the 150 foot
tower would be clearly visible from her living room and it would be an abominable sight.
Ms. Watters was sure that the presence of a tower would devalue her property and she
had four children to send to college and cannot afford to lose money on her largest
investment.
Sandra Forrester, 13673 Cheswick Boulevard, commented that the previous year,
Cellular One had wanted to locate an 80 foot cellular tower in front of Smokey Row
Elementary disguised as a flag pole. The parents of the students and the surrounding
residents voiced objection due to aesthetics, health, and property value concerns. At that
time, it was suggested by the audience that Cellular One consider putting a tower in a
commercial setting rather than a residential area; the reply was that if this were done, the
tower would have to be 150 feet tall. That is currently what is being proposed, and a
small circle of trees will not mask a 150 foot tower, a structure approximately 12 and
one -half stories tall.
Jill Pegram, 2731 West 146 Street, stated that most of her concerns had already been
expressed. Ms. Pegram submitted a petition with 49 signature to be added to the petition
already on file with 84 signatures in opposition.
Mary Vaughn, 13819 Stone Drive in the Buckhorn development, stated that her back
yard backs up to 141 Street, but uncertain as to close proximity Ms. Vaughn stated that
she was out of town at the time of the previous public hearing. Ms. Vaughn agreed with
prior comments made by the area residents. Ms. Vaughn had some procedural questions
and was concerned that her homeowners association had not organized to remonstrate.
Ms. Vaughn asked why a tower 300 feet tall could not be constructed out into the wide,
open spaces! Ms. Vaughn thought that if given enough time, she could also present a
petition with signatures in opposition to the tower. Ms. Vaughn was adamantly opposed
to the tower!
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 5
Pat Allianardy, 13874 Row, Middle Drive, agreed with all previous speakers and also felt
that the cell tower should be constructed in a commercial area, and taller to accommodate
a wider range rather than littering the country side with numerous towers.
CeeCee Brell, 13874 Magic Stallion Drive, stated she had just moved into her home and
only yesterday found a brochure in her box. Ms. Brell stated that there is no way she
would have ever purchased this particular house if she had known a 150 tower was going
to be constructed in her back yard. Ms. Brell was interested in signing the petition that
had been presented earlier.
Arlette Pryor 141 Street, directly across from the proposed tower site, stated that his
wife had previously submitted a written appraisal from a realtor that the construction of
one tower would devalue their home by $60,202; more towers would devalue further and
Mr. Pryor would not cherish the loss. Mr. Pryor stated that he has a bachelor's degree
from Purdue and is an electrical engineer. As an engineer, he is trained to give good
regard to cost and efficiency and also look out for safety. There are surely alternative
sites available and these should be explored by the Cell Tower Company; other sites may
be more costly, but it might be more beneficial for Carmel. Mr. Pryor stated that Carmel
is the most expensive tax base area he has ever lived; Mr. Pryor had no qualm because
the area is nice and there are a lot of nice benefits from those tax dollars. There are
devices that can hang from utility poles and telephone poles; they are expensive, but they
do a much better job -they cut down on the break -ups in service, and no tower is needed.
Mr. Burroughs' rebuttal: One of the things being said is something that should have been
said and may have been said when the City Council adopted the Ordinance. A common
thread among the remonstrators is the idea that towers should never be allowed in
residential districts; towers are always injurious to the public health, safety and welfare;
towers are always harmful to property values and should not be permitted. The only
problem, from a legal standpoint, is that Carmel's Ordinance permits towers in residential
districts. What is before the Board is not a request for a variance for the location of the
tower. The only variance request is that the tower be 30 feet higher than the ordinance
permits and that it be located closer to Mr. Tyner's property than otherwise permitted. A
Special Exception is not a Variance. A Special Exception permits a use in a district
subject to the establishment of certain conditions heretofore mentioned. The
remonstrators are saying that you can never have a tower in a residential district -this is
contrary to the Ordinance adopted by the City Council.
Mr. Burroughs commented that Ms. Pryor's presentation was a backdoor attempt to
interject into this hearing issues about which the Federal Government, Congress, and the
FCC have declared should not be considered in rendering a decision of this sort -that is
the environmental effects of radio frequency waves. The law is clear, and to the extent
that Ms. Pryor accomplished that mission by bootstrapping it into an argument about
property values, it is objectionable and has no part of this hearing. There is no
opportunity to debate with the persons on 20/20, to cross examine the doctors -and it
should not be done because it is not an issue of concern. It is not something the
Government has said that should be considered in these hearings.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 6
As far as the Virginia Beach discussion -the argument that seems to be made by Ms.
Pryor is that the petitioner is saying there should not be a hearing -to Mr. Burroughs'
knowledge, this has not been said. The Court has ruled that you cannot ignore the owners
of surrounding properties, their complaints must be heard and we accept that. We are not
saying that because we are here, you have to approve this -you have to approve this if we
establish the conditions that are required in the Ordinance, and that is all we are asking
the Board to look at. Ms. Pryor seems to be taking the position that because they clamor
and because they object and because they say "I feel it's going to hurt my property
values," then it's true just be saying it; if you get enough people to say it, that makes it
true! That is not the law in any jurisdiction and certainly not the law in Indiana where
there is clear case law that says no matter how many people appear at a hearing, if the
facts are not established, the Board must vote the other way. The question is "Have we
established the facts to support the conditions set forth in the Ordinance
With respect to the non presence of the Tyners, it is uncertain what their presence would
accomplish. The Tyners clearly want to lease their property to Omnipoint and have no
objection to the tower. The Tyners' lack of presence does not give justification for
denying this petition, and any remarks about their cowardliness from the neighbors is
inappropriate in this public forum- -that is a matter between neighbors. The Tyners have
not been asked to be present and it is uncommon that they would be present.
There was conversation and discussion on the appraisal previously submitted by Ms.
Pryor. Mr. Burroughs commented that what Ms. Pryor had submitted constituted an
opinion without a factual basis and was an assumption only. Mr. Stump's opinion is
supported by a study of facts.
Will Stump, 11495 North Pennsylvania Street, Cannel, appeared before the Board to
respond to comments. The neighbors have genuine concerns. A comparative study was
done before and after the construction of a cell tower in a Cicero, Indiana residential
subdivision. At the time the study was started, there was no cell tower in the
neighborhood, then a 150 foot tower was built and the sales of the homes in the area were
tracked as to number of days on the market after the cell tower was constructed. The
conclusions were based on fact and were not merely opinions or someone's judgment as
to the effect on property values. The letter of "appraisal" submitted by Ms. Pryor is an
opinion that states the value of the property as $684,500. and that the value lost is 10 to
15 -he is entitled to his opinion, but very frankly, there is no factual basis for this
opinion; there is no evidence presented to support his conclusion. There are people who
bought in Laurelwood Subdivision with a radio tower in clear sight and never considered
the presence of the tower; there are persons who would not buy a home within close
proximity to a detention/retention pond -some have small children and believe it to be
dangerous. This does not necessarily mean that the lakes and ponds substantially,
adversely affect the property values in that neighborhood because there are persons who
will buy homes in these areas.
Harland Kauffman, Radio Frequency Engineer, addressed the issue of alternative sites,
i.e. situating a tower northwest; the feasibility of building taller towers in commercial
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 7
areas; constructing one, 300 foot tower somewhere; limiting the towers to US 31 and 421.
Mr Kauffman talked about the design process and the determination of site locations.
One tower of substantial height will only accommodate a limited number of users. The
number of wireless users currently using the network is one big reason why one tower of
substantial height is not a viable option. The site is limited by the amount of power the
tower is allowed to transmit- -the equipment is fixed and transmission is made by the
amount of power allowed. In the Carmel area, the location was chosen by the coverage
needed along Keystone, Meridian, 465, 421, up to 32 and over, based on Omnipoint's
design standards. Where the site is currently proposed is where there have been
numerous complaints from persons within those areas that coverage is deficient. The
distance of radio waves also limits the coverage.
Mr. Burroughs explained that Unisite builds towers to accommodate many carriers. If
the current request for a tower is approved for up to 150 feet, there will be five carriers on
the tower; if the tower is 120 feet, there will be fewer than five carriers. If the request is
approved, digital telephone service within the community will be provided and the need
will be reduced for additional towers. Mr. Burroughs felt that all major concerns of the
remonstrators had been addressed.
Terry Jones gave the Department report. The Ordinance does contemplate location of
these types of tower uses in residential districts and it was highly discussed during its
inception and through the approval process both at the Plan Commission and City
Council. There was no doubt that residentially zoned areas were going to be receiving
these kinds of uses. In considering the locations, the Department does not have the
resources available to do a lot of fencing with an applicant over the exact location and the
exact back yard, etc. As a Special Exception allowed by the Ordinance, it is
contemplated in residential areas. In regard to the variance providing for location within
100 feet of residential purposes, there did not seem to be a huge problem because the
individual most affected by that restriction is the individual that is leasing the land for the
use. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to go beyond the 120 foot height
restriction. The ordinance also allows for competing factions to submit evidence that
they cannot co- locate on the tower.
At this point, the Board took a short recess.
Charles Weinkauf declared the public hearing closed on items 1. 2., and 3. under Old
Business.
Board Members comments:
Jim Quinn stated that after listening to all the arguments for and against the tower, he had
formed some specific opinions. With regard to the use and value of the area adjacent to
the proposed site not being affected in a substantially adverse manner, Mr. Stump's study,
while thorough and accurate, is not found to be applicable to this particular parcel of real
estate. The need for the special exception arises from the applicant's responsibility to
provide public utilities service and not from any condition peculiar to the premises under
consideration. The proposed site seems to be the only site explored in this area where
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 8
there is a willing renter. Mr. Quinn commented that there are alternative sites and maybe
better locations in the region surrounding the proposed site should be explored. Mr.
Quinn referred to a court decision in Illinois in which a civil jurisdiction was required by
the Court to reduce the appraised or the value of a property for taxation purposes based
on the land owner's claim that their property value had been diminished by the
construction of a cell tower in the immediate area. The Court ordered the taxing
jurisdiction to lower the taxable value of the real estate. Mr. Quinn concluded that he did
not find a compelling need for this particular tower in this particular location.
Tom Yedlick commented that he was expecting more information in advance of the
meeting in order to study the situation. Tom was interested in knowing what the grids are
and the overlaps and possible alternatives. Tom commented that by rejecting seemingly
logical, reasonable alternatives, the community would end up with unreasonable
alternatives. The range of towers is still in question. It seems that when pressed, other
alternatives are found. The site at the Northview Christian Life Church on 131 Street is
approximately 2 1/2 miles from the proposed site at 108 and Hazel Dell Parkway and
would replace the location at 108 and Hazel Dell; it seems you can go a long way to get
the same coverage. There are various locations around the City for air raid sirens, public
utility poles, and telephone poles that are 96 feet tall. Mr. Yedlick concurred with Mr.
Quinn's comments that the real estate study done (by Mr. Stump) was inconclusive.
Pat Rice's comments: Ms. Rice was not convinced that the use and value of the area
adjacent to the proposed location will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner in
an already developed area where homes currently exist. The idea of constructing a tower
so that future homeowners will have a choice seems to be something that should be
explored. Ms. Rice wondered if the petitioner had made contact with other land owners
in the area.
Pat Mcllvenna, 8777 Purdue Road, Indianapolis, addressed the efforts for site acquisition
for Omnipoint and Unisite. At least three possible locations are located where a
landowner is willing to lease his property. When first reviewing a search area, existing
structures of sufficient height are sought out for co- location. This particular search area
netted no structure of a sufficient height for co- location purposes. The next step is to
look at raw ground pieces of property; there were two landowners who were possible
candidates. Mr. Tyner's property was chosen as the best site because it would be located
800 feet off the main road and surrounded by trees -from a zoning standpoint that would
be the best situation. The other two property owners were interested in leasing their
property, however the Wilbur Tyner property was selected because of the uniqueness of
the setback into a heavily wooded area. There were also some families in the area who
were not interested in leasing their property.
Earlene Plavchak asked about co- locating on a telephone pole and if that was a viable
alternative.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 9
Pat Mcllvenna responded that the same type of equipment would be available, but there
would be issues regarding right -of -way with surrounding property owners and easement
access.
Charles Weinkauf asked how close to the proposed site could another like tower carrying
4 or 5 antennae from different companies be located? In other words, could there be
another tower located next to the proposed tower? And, are all providers' signals equal in
terms of strength?
Mr. Mcllvenna responded that the towers would have to be spaced approximately 100
feet apart due to the near field of the antennae and not to cause interference with existing
structures. All providers' signals are not equal Cellular One and GTMobilnet are
considered existing cellular providers in the Indpls. area -they were granted licenses in
the early 1980's to transmit in a frequency range of approximately 850 to 900 megahertz
range. The Omnipoint transmit frequencies are around 1950 megahertz range -a large
discrepancy based on radio propagation. A lower frequency signal travels a farther
distance. All providers are now providing a digital service with different power outputs.
Mr. Weinkauf asked what type of range would the Omnipoint signal adequately cover on
a 150 foot tower. Harland Kauffman responded that typically, at 150 feet, the radius
would be approximately one and one -half miles Terrain and trees affect the signal the
most because of the frequency range. A signal produced by Cellular One or GTMobilnet
can effectively travel probably one quarter to one -half mile farther. At 120 feet,
Omnipoint's signal can effectively travel approximately one mile to one and one quarter
or one -half; again, it depends on the terrain. At 90 feet, Omnipoint's signal would
probably be effective within three- quarters to one mile.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that the public has begun to demand more of this type of
service and there are a number of programs and plans that make it more attractive to use
the wireless in a home than a wired communication. If the public desires this type of
communication service, they must also live with what goes with it. Mr. Weinkauf asked
the public to keep in mind that the Ordinance does provide for cellular communications
towers today as the Ordinance exists in residential areas.
Mr. Weinkauf asked about the Village of WestClay site that was mentioned earlier as far
as location and the amount of ground available. Terry Jones explained the PUD for the
Village of WestClay and its general location at the vacated Hoover Road, and 131 Street
over to Towne Road. The PUD is a mixed -use, populated re -zone from very high end,
single family residential, $1 million or over, down to multiple family townhomes and
apartment -type uses with public area being a commercial village "node" with some fairly
tall buildings. The Ordinance eludes to commercial buildings being used for this type of
use as a Special Use, not as a Special Exception. The Special Exception was established
through the Ordinance to be the more difficult, but yet an opportunity for location of the
towers or of the antennae. The antennae have been used as an alternative to the towers.
The antennae are obviously less objectionable than the towers and can be disguised a lot
easier.
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 10
Jim Burroughs asked about the Village of WestClay and was told that currently, there are
no buildings in existence. According to the Ordinance, the standard to prove is that there
are no existing or approved towers or other structures in the vicinity. Currently there are
no structures within the Village of WestClay and the petitioner cannot be made to wait
until land is developed before a structure is tall enough to be workable.
Jim Quinn commented that it seemed the tower is irrelevant- -what is needed is a
proportion between a certain number of antennae at a certain height to cover a certain
geographical region. The lower the height of the tower, the more towers that are needed
to cover an area.
James Quinn moved for the approval of Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower SE-
32-99.
Charles Weinkauf extended the opportunity to Mr. Burroughs to Table this petition and
explore other options or alternatives. Mr. Burroughs stated that the petitioner has
explored those alternatives that were deemed workable; Mr. Burroughs declined to Table.
James Quinn's motion for approval on SE -32 -99 was APPROVED 3 in favor, 2 opposed
(James Quinn and Pat Rice).
James Quinn moved for the approval of Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower V -34-
99. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
James Quinn moved for the approval of Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower V -33-
99.
John Molitor clarified the Ordinance -when technologically feasible, the Board shall
require a commitment that there be four co- locations on a tower although there is no
prohibition on asking for more co- locators.
There was further discussion on the possible number of co- locators on a 150 foot tower.
When approval is given for a tower to be built, the provider is to make a commitment that
space on the tower will be made available to other providers at a reasonable market rate.
James Quinn then amended his motion to condition approval of V -33 -99 upon a total
of 5 providers co- locating on the Omnipoint Tower. APPROVED 4 in favor, Tom
Yedlick opposed.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
10:45 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
S:\ BZA\Minutes \bza1999oct.celltwrs 11