Laserfiche WebLink
<br />stated that they would not ueed another tower for five years. Mr. Lendex stated that technologies can <br />chauge and they could increase number of key ones ruuiiuig through a site, he made his statement from <br />a tecluiological viewpoiut. The other person was speaking in terms of increased capacity since, if the <br />technology does not develop, they will need inore towers, but he does not believe that will be the case. <br />Mr. Tallon had heard that, in the futuse, they might have antennas on top of telephone poles. Mr. <br />Lendex stated that this would be feasible, but the antennas would have to be placed at every 8th of the <br />mile, wluch would be cost prolubitive. 'Ihe developers had submitted charts showing the coverage of <br />the area if the tower were at the recreation center. Mr. Herbster asked if they were allowed to go <br />higher at another location, such as the water tower, would they still have coverage. Mr. Lendex <br />responded that if a pole were much higher there would be interference from other sites and the quality <br />of the system would suffer. The closest tower is at the airport and is 98 feet high because of the FAA <br />restrictions. Mr. Tallou wondered why the proposed tower could not be at that height since that would <br />be above the tree line. Mr. Lendex explained why this would not work, and maintained if the airport <br />tower could have beeu lugher they might not have needed this one. He further maintained putting up <br />300 foot towers would be a financial burden, but if they put up a 100 foot tower on the recreation <br />center property, they would need two additional towers in North Olmsted. In response to Mr. Tallon's <br />questions, Assistant Law Duector Dubelko advised that, in the Telecommunications Act, the city's <br />zoning authority is preseived, but the zouing authority cannot do certain tluugs, they cannot exercise <br />their zoning authority iu a inanner that would result in discrimination between providers. Two, neither <br />can the city exercise its authority so that it prolubits a carrier from coming into the community. Three, <br />any applications must be acted on in a reasonable leugth of time. Four, a city cannot deny an <br />application ou the basis of environmental effects of radio frequencies transmissions, as long as the <br />provider is using technology that is approved by the FCC. Five, any decision to deny, on the basis of <br />zoning, must be in writing and supported by evidence of record. It might be viewed as discrimination if <br />the city exercised its zoning authority in a manner that would prohibit one provider from having 100% <br />coverage, yet allowed another to have that coverage,. Mr. Herbster asked if it would be considered <br />unreasonable, if the city restricted the height aud the provider could not get 100% coverage by adding <br />additional towers. Mr. Dubellco believed that the city could limit the heights of towers, as long as they <br />were not discrimiuating against a provider or prohibiting a provider from coming into the city. Mr. <br />Herbster surmiced that, if tlus were approved at 150 feet, would they be obligated to allow 150 feet <br />elsewhere. Mr. Dubleko believe that might be true. Ms. Del Valle noted that the FCC is still auctioning <br />off frequencies, so more caiiiers will be coming in, but by limiting towers to 110 feet, would be <br />limiting it to two antennas per pole even if it were built for three, because the tree line is at 90 feet. <br />Mr. Tallon noted that tlus does not seem to be the case, since they cannot use the existing tower <br />because it is in the wroug location. Ms. Del Valle stated that with towers a mile or a mile and half <br />apart there should be adequate coverage in the area. Mr. Herbster responded that this was not true for <br />them and it might not work for others. Mr. Lendex stated that their location will accommodate the <br />mall and the highway, should be an ideal location for most tower companies. Mr. Tallon responded, if <br />theirs was off by a half of a mile, it would not work. Mr. Lendex agreed and stated he cannot predict <br />their locations, but the typical cellular company proposals are between 120 and 150 feet high and the <br />antenna separations can be every 10 to 15 feet so this location is ideaL Mr. Conway clarified that the <br />Clague Park tower was 125 feet high with the antenna. He pointed out that there were several towers <br />at 120 to 150 feet shovvu on the chart. Mr. Brennan asked Mr. Lendex to respond to the health and <br />welfare issues that were brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Lendex advised that there is a summary on <br />the second page of the report written by Jeffold T. Bushberg and the last two paragraphs state that <br />frequencies at the 800 range, which is what this carrier works at, has not been found to be harmful in <br />many studies. The chart on the last page compares frequencies of various sources and the typical SMR <br />? <br />..z.. .