12/08/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

relieve the boa.rds concerns about the fence. NIr. Tallon indicated the board is saying somehow enclose that equipinent so it prevents somebody from getting access to the Mona pole or the equipment period. Mr. Tallon asked to see the overlay map, Mr. Conway suggested the map had not been completecl. Mr. Tallon asked if the Planning Cominissioners could review the overlay map once it was complete. Mr. Dubellco suggested he was not sure the map would appear. He has spoken to Mr. Hunt who helped tliem with the ordinance and he indicated he would help reconstnict it again if need be. Mr. Tallon suggested they wanted to make note of the fence and say fence or other type of enclosure. Mr. Tallon asked whicli section covered the fence. Mr. Spalding suggested it was section I. Mr. Tallon indicated the commissioners wanted to recornmend that the section covering the security fence be not less then 6' feet in height and not greater then 8' feet in height shall fully enclose those portions of those wii-eless communications equipment that come into contact with tlle grotind. The gate to be loclced at all times, to include fence or other enclosures to prevent access to the facilities. T'urthermore the Planning Commission recommends that 1151.05 B2 to include an exception for 10' feet above the high tension towers. Mr. Koeth aslced if the FAA required 200 feet as a rule. Mr. Conway suggested that is what he had been hearing but the closer you get to the air port the lower that number gets and topography has a lot to do with also. Mr: Brennan aslced where the 15'foot above the roof came from in the ordinance. 1VIr. Conway suggested from what they had been seeing installed. Mr. Conway indicated they have limited the antennas to three to a building. Mr. Tallon aslced if a load study would need to be done if an antenna is being put on the roof of a building. Mr. Conway indicated that is part of the planing process depending on what is put on the building. Some of the additions have the antenna on the roof and the equipment in a rented apartment room. If Mr. Deicllmann sees something raising a concern regarding structural elements he will ask foi- a study, it is not automatic. Mr. Deichmann indicated what they put on the roofs in terms of the antenna is very light weight, a person standing on the roof will have more weight then i:he antennas. The cabinets are in a room below the roof. If a platform is being used then the platforms are being tied into the columns below. The designer declares the loads and so fare he hasn't seen any problems stnicturally from what they have been putting on tops of roofs. 1VIs. Fox indicated structurally we always reveal stiucture weight, and by limiting it to three carriers it is limiting your ordinance, because there are so many ways they can attach antennas to buildings, they catl be put in different areas around the roofs. Mr. Brennan suggested he would rather see all the antennas on one building then see them all over the place. Mr. Conway suggested they even paint the antennas to match the building so you can blrely see them. The police and Fire antenna is worse then these it is 60' feet off the Westbury, that needs more height then these things do, and he is not sure why it was limited to three carriers. Mr. Conway asked 1VIr. Dubellco if 6 licenses were assigned to each area. Mr. Dubellco indicated he believed it was five or six and one company has bowed out. Mr. Conway suggested it could be a thought to allow more then three carriers to a site, it is up to the Commissioners to recommend. Mr. Tallon suggested leaving it at three, it can always be changed later. R. Tallon moved to approve Ordinance No. 98-130; the chapter for Wireless Telecommuiucations facilities regulations and Wireless telecommunication facilities overlay (WTFO) district. Planning Commission recommends that section 1151.05 (I) SecLirity to include, fence or other enclosures to prevent access. That section 1151.05 (B-2) Hei ht to 11