03/01/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

relevance to everyone here. If SprintCom has an easier way to accomplish what they need to accomplish, they are going to do that, but if it is faster and cheaper that is what, they are going to do. Typically what SprintCom and every other carrier likes to do is locate their anteruia on an existing site as it is less expensive and easier to get governmental approval to do and it is quicker. They have evaluated the 2 alternate antennas and yet here they are. If SprintCom places their antenna on 1 of the other Z inonopole's with other carriers in place within their network that are already being used and if they move their antenna closer to one of those then it gets some signal into the area they need to cover, but at the same time they don't cover the entire area and at the same time there is going to be overlap interference. That type of inefficiency is bad business and is bad from a technological standpoint. What that means, is our customers in those areas will find on a propagation study that there is a lot of signal in the area, but the signal will be depleted and will have interference. It will suffer the same syndrome as if there was no antenna in the area. So there is an efficiency question present. If they collocate on one of the existing monopole's they can get some signal into the area but will still have gaps in coverage because that is what our propagation studies indicate. In addition, it will open week links or weaknesses in other parts of the system were there are none right now. They have carefully evaluated whether or not it makes sense for them to go on these poles. The applicant is here because it does not make sense, because if they locate on another tower then they will be back as they will still need another antienna in the McConnick area. There is one facility in North Olmsted and at this point, all of their other signals in North Olmsted are being provided from other sites outside North Olmsted. They have an area that is being dictated by their requireinent to provide a satisfactory service. If this tower is allowed, they are of a mind that it is very unlikely that they will need another monopole in North Olmsted. One of the residents suggested purchasing an existing dilapidated white building that has been up for sale for a long time and place their tower there. We do not want it by our children or our homes. Mr. Wright indicated that their street is not even shown on the Cities site maps. There are councilman present because they are against the proposal. The residents at Bridgeport have never been notified by SprintCom and we the residents are against this proposal. The residents are concerned about the microwaves that will be sent out of their antenna. There is a question of what harmful affects the microwaves and electromagnetic radiation will cause. They are concerned for the safety of the children, breast cancer and other things that have not been addressed. The neighborhood children use that property to cut through to catch the bus to school. There is a question regarding the equipment, which creates the potential injury or electrocution that could exist. There has been no information provided regarding what steps will be taken to keep the tower or electrical equipment away from the residents children. Two other sites can be used. One of the sites that could be used is I-480 and as far as the residents can tell there is no benefit to the City of North Olmsted and or it is safety forces. There was a telephone canvas with the following results on the 24"'. 19 residents were contacted and all were opposed as well as the Councilmen that are present. Between January and tonight they have left messages at 12 homes that did not respond and 5 of those homes were talked to and they are opposed to this as well. There was only one individual that was contacted that did not care what was done by anyone else. It would be hard to prove why a 120 foot tower should be Iess than 100-feet from the residents homes. Mr. Hillman asked if Clague _ towers and other tall buildings had been looked at. Councilman McKay indicated that he was opposed to the tower because of safety issues. Ten (10) years ago the City of North Olmsted decided to write an ordinance to reduce all pole signs because the pole signs were not pleasant to the eye to look at anywhere. Now the applicants are proposing a 120 foot tower that will be seen from Lorain Road and not to mention be in the neighbors backyards. This tower will not add anything esthetically to North Olmsted. According to the code, a monopole should not be allowed when the City only allows 50 foot poles. 'I'he applicants are asking for more than 2/3rds of what the city allows. The City has spent a lot of time and money to make sure that we adequately provide for the telecommunication requirements. This tower is not proposed to go within his ward hut as a resident 6