07/22/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conduct its review within that 60 day time frame, from July 8th. That would take them into September. The clerk indicated the meetings in September are scheduled for the 9th and the 23`d. Mr. Lasko said that his opinion is that recognizing the specific request that was made by the board at the last meeting, that a representative from O.D.O.T. be physically present at this meeting, and Mr. Satarawala said he did make that request of one or two O.D.O.T. representatives, there is good cause to attribute any delay that would occur in being able to take action on this one way or the other, and is in fact attributable to a delay occasioned by the actions of the applicant. He said the board is well within its province to table the matter right now notwithstanding the 60 day period that has in fact been extended based upon the actions of the applicant even if the applicant would not agree to it out of hand anyway. Mr. O'Malley said he would agree with that analysis assuming the other members do as well. He said in looking at a calendar, the first September meeting is within the 60 days. He said the search for alternative locations is an appropriate consideration. The state owns and controls all of the right of way up and down the highway and you can liken this to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction over a site plan for a commercial building. The board might address the location of the building on the site. Here, let's say the right of way is akin to the site and what the board is attempting to do is address alternative locations along the right of way that might have less of an adverse impact upon the residential area. He said Chapter 1126 speaks to recommendations they might make and findings they might make as to the significant adverse impact of this plan. It is not that the use is not permitted; it is clearly permitted. It is not that the proposal does not comply with the code; it clearly does. Notwithstanding its compliance with the code, federal law, the State of Ohio's qualified immunity to license Cingular Wireless to appear before the board on its behalf, and notwithstanding the state's superior control over the issuance of building permits, the city's role in zoning still has some part in this. He said the board's function in analyzing the adverse impacts of the proposal comes into play. He said the board's purpose is to go beyond the hard and fast technical application of the code and look at the softer issues as to how this site and development affects the area. Mrs. Hoff-Smith said that is where she has her biggest problem. She explained she was not at the last meeting but she read the packet materials and minutes. She understands what was proposed two weeks ago. There was a lot of concern by the residents and the board members, but what came back two weeks later is somebody who is taking the same plan, who didn't listen to a word that any of the residents or the commission said, and is cramming it down our throats with a threat like, "we don't have to be here." She said she thinks the State of Ohio and O.D.O.T.'s intention of having it go through the municipal bodies, is more than just the fact that we can collect our permit fees. She thinks they are sensitive to the residents. The board is trying to tweak this plan to lessen the adverse impact. That was not addressed in the last two weeks. Mr. Hreha said he would also like to see someone from the State of Ohio here to explain that this has to be done. Mr. Koeth said he wants the input from the engineer. He also wants the engineer's opinion of a tower to the north to be able to cover both spots and the opportunity of one tower south of the intersection. Mr. Satarawala said he is not here to make threats, or accusations, or demands. He was asked to find a site on highway property. Initially Cingular had the objective of a 1/2-mile search ring. He said per the engineer, he would have looked at other alternatives had they been able. He then asked if Mr. Kovitch spoke at the last ineeting. Mr. Lasko indicated Mr. Kovitch did speak but not on some of the issues raised tonight. He said some of the questions raised tonight, which clearly Mr. Kovitch might have been able to address, were not conceived of two weeks ago. The board does not have the benefit of his expertise tonight. Mr. Satarawala said he will request that the state be present for the next meeting. He told Mr. Hreha that he knows of no new technology that exists that would prevent a structure like this from going up, otherwise, they would use it. Mre Hreha said he can understand that and he recognizes the explanation but Mr. Satarawala keeps saying the same thing over and over again, and it will cause him to say the same thing over again, which is, it is not the board's responsibility to make up for the fact that Cingular came in fourth. Mr. Satarawala said it is their responsibility as an FCC licensee to provide coverage for their customers. Mr. Hreha said not at the expense of our residents. He said in addition to the points brought up from the map, Mr. Kovitch when he was here last time, was asked about the triangle south of I-480 and he made comments about that. He suggested 8