Laserfiche WebLink
length of the access drive was installed when the CEI public utility poles were installed. <br />Cingular believes that they should be grandfathered under the existing easement and as such <br />they can not widen, add additional base or more shell to the road. The access road is about a 2 <br />mile length. They are willing to fence in the equipment shelter with either board on board or <br />chainlink fencing. The third variance pertaining to the access road meeting load limitations for <br />fire trucks, again the road was installed by CEI as an easement access and CEI currently uses <br />the roads as they are now. There has never been a fire in the area and there is plenty of room <br />for emergency vehicles to maneuver around the sitee They have never had a fire in one of their <br />shelters and if there is tlie shelter is fire rated and would be contained within the structure. <br />Mr. Graves advised that the placement of the antennas is the best location possible for the city <br />as there would be zero visual impact to neighboring properties. The roadway has a very <br />limited use and will only be accessed 5 to 6 times a year. Under section 1151.05 (L) access to <br />facility his interpretation of that code is that a driveway is needed only if one is not provide <br />which is not the case there is a preexisting driveway which is feasible. Landscaping under <br />section 1151.05 (E) requires a 15-foot landscape buffer between the wireless communication <br />facility and public right-of-way or any other properties which have direct view of the facilities. <br />This site has no right-of-way and there are no adj acent properties which have a direct view of <br />the site so that would exclude this tower. He suggests that the request to vary from the 15-foot <br />requirement is practical in this instance. His clients request complies with all 7 or 8 factors <br />under City Code section 1151.01. <br />Mr. Lasko requested clarification as to what would be required since the applicants have stated <br />they wish to move forward on the bases of a conditional use permit. Mr. Rymarczyk advised <br />that the commission could waive all requirements written except what was requested by the <br />Safety Director. Mr. Yager questioned why the safety issues pertaining to the access drive <br />were not addressed when the antenna was fist submitted to the City for approval. Mr. <br />Rymaxczyk advised that the applicants existing tower is an illegal non-conforming structure. <br />There has never been a proposal, request or permit, filled out to construct the tower nor has <br />there ever been a permit issued to allow the antenna tower to be constructed. <br />Mr. Midamba wanted to clarify that the driveway was constructed when the utility towers were <br />constructed in 1972. Mr. Lasko questioned if the applicant was stating that the access roads <br />were constructed for the electrical towers only to be used by the electric company to maintain <br />the electrical transmission lines and not to provide access to antenna towers. Mr. Midamba <br />stated Mr. Lasko was correct. <br />Mr. Lasko asked for clarification from the Law Deparhnent on the status of the existing <br />antenna tower. Mr. O'Malley advised that the installation although not previously reviewed or <br />permitted has been reviewed by the Building Commissioner who has suggested addressing the <br />applicant's request as a conditional use including performance standards and waiver provisions <br />under section 1151.08a The commission would not be addressing the antenna under possible <br />grandfathered lawful non-conforming rights as the applicants are not trying to meet or establish <br />a lawful non-conformity; they are going straight to the installation of the antennas by the use of <br />a conditional use standard. The only matter that would not be part of the conditional use <br />standard would be the Safety Directors memo requesting the applicants provide a turnaround <br />and bypass which he is within his right to requireo <br />Mr. Yager expressed concern that the tower was never approved by the City and that the <br />Commission was now asked to consider an addition. He felt it was inappropriate to return to <br />the City and imply their illegal equipment is now grandfathered and should be allowed to <br />4