05/24/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

install more equipment and still not conform to what is required by code. Mr. Cotner questioned when the Building Department found out the antenna tower was installed and who installed the antenna tower. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the applicant's documentation shows the antenna tower being constructed in 1997 however the building department has no knowledge as to whom or when the tower was installed. Mr. Graves gave background on AT&T and CEI. CEI had a substantial amount of autonomy with respect to the instillation of their facilities and equipment. Therefore, the installations were not just AT&T antenna towers but AT&T joint venture antennas part of the CEI facility. Therefore all the communities they entered into and installed antenna towers into CEI power poles was a joint venture and just like CEI who is not required to go to or through the City for permits or approval neither was AT&T. He understands the city's concerns but it was a CEI project which AT&T had ownership in and continues to have said ownership. Mr. Cotner asked that if what is being said is true then why is Cingular asking for city approval for the 3 antennas. Mr. Graves advised that they are also installing an equipment shelter at the site that is why they are before the city. Mr. O'Malley advised that the building department normally reviews properties which have addresses and not the power transmission corridor as it is more in the Service and Engineering Deparhnents' jurisdiction. He is not sure if the city has extensive right-of-way regulations or if the engineering department is actively engaged in monitoring the activities of CEI and what they do with their towers. However the commission is looking at this proposal as not being previously permitted or approved or exempted as it is subject to starting from scratch like any other proposal which comes before the commission. The Building Departments conditional use suggestion was made as a middle ground. Mr. Yager went through photos which were submitted by the applicants and asked if all the photos were of the existing power tower and the area around it or were the photos showing what the tower would look like once everything is in place. Mr. Satarawala advised that the photos are of current conditions and was taken from the south side of the Barton Road Bridge looking back to the site with a zoom lens. The photo which shows the mechanical shelter is what they intend to install. Mr. Bohlmann said CEI is not free to do what ever they want as has been implied by the applicants; they are required to go through the Engineering Department for review. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not the site and work was grandfathered or whether the applicants should be required to go before the commission. Mr. Lasko advised that although he would like the matter completed in a timely manner the tower insert may or may not have been properly installed. However, the location of the tower and its enhancements are in a desirable area and preferable to being located elsewhere within the city. Therefore he would proceed by addressing the application as a conditional accessory use which would be predicated upon a determination by the Law Department that in fact the commission is dealing with a legal non-conforming status of the original polee Mr. O'Malley advised that the Commission could proceed under the provisions of chapter 1151.08. The Commission may waive the provisions of the chapter applied for a conditional use but only in areas permitted by the chapter based on specific criteria. Mr. Yager said that any applicant in the past has always presented the commission with a report; however this applicant has not submitted any reports pertaining to their tower specifications. Mr. Graves stated that, in accordance to the telecommunications act of 1996 the community or city is prohibited from considering the health and safety ramification of the radio emissions from a 5