12/23/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a suitable location. It has been rezoned. They have the setbacks and aesthetic considerations. He said it is important for the record to reflect a number of the very important legal considerations that are before the board. He said the last applicant that was before the board for a tower was on land owned by ODOT so there are similarities. But, the school board is a political subdivision. It is not absolutely immune from local zoning control but it is a political subdivision just like the city so it has some qualified immunity from the zoning law. That means they are still required to go through the process and attempt in every way to comply with the zoning laws. Things are a little different when talking about a cell tower. ODOT, through state statutes is able to license cell companies to come in on their behalf to locate cell towers on state right of way. He said under Chapter 1151 of the code, this is a conditional use. It needs to meet and satisfy the conditions that are outlined in the code and the Building Department can do a better job of summarizing all of the various conditions that the code contains. As a conditional use it is within the commission's authority under Section 1151.08, to recommend a waiver of some of the requirements. For example, it is not expected that lighting would be on a tower like this but the applicant proposes to disguise the tower by replacing an existing lighting fixture. And, they want to attach lighting to it to light up the ball field. That is a condition they normally do not allow. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed to enable local zoning authorities to regulate to some extent the placement of towers of this nature and as a result, the city passed Chapter 1151 in 2000 after contemplation and consultation with an expert in the area. In the absence of that chapter, cell companies could propose a tower anywhere. This chapter is designed to herd them into certain areas and the city is trying to make places available. They have setbacks, buffering, and co-location requirements. The idea of having a pad for 2 or 3 additional co- locators was designed to reduce the number of towers. There are requirements in the code that the applicant demonstrate its technological need, and show they have attempted to co-locate on another tower. He said the board has dealt with these things in the past. Mr. Richards said whenever Sprint sites one of its structures, they attempt to minimize the impact on the surrounding area. When they approached this site it was from the standpoint of where is there a location in which they can meet the setback location, where there happens to be existing structures that are already tall rather than adding a structure. It serves a dual purpose. Mr. Yager asked for clarification on the coverage map. Mr. Fannin gave a brief description of the coverage map. Audience Particiqation Mr. Chris Scarl came forward on behalf of a group he co-chairs, ACIG, the Athletic Complex Improvement Group. It is a large group of residents that for the last year has started a fundraising campaign to improve the stadium and track for the students of the district. He said he is disheartened that Mr. Lasko decided to move himself off this agenda item. He knows he takes office in a couple of weeks but his input would have been greatly appreciated. Mr. Lasko explained the reason he has to abstain. He said it was done after consultation with the Law Director. He said he is not an actual `board member yet but having been elected and having received the certification from the Board of Elections, and because this matter is pending and the given the history of what has transpired with this type of issue in the past, when this type of matter comes to the commission where it has already been demonstrated that additional information is going to be required because of different locations that might be needed, inasmuch as this matter in all likelihood will go into the next year, being a member elect is enough to disqualify him from voting on the issue. He had no choice under the,conflict of interest laws of the state but to remove himself from consideration. Mr. Scarl said he could accept that but tonight there was a possibility this could be settled and they did not want to see that. He said on the path that Sprint is proposing, he believes it was originally just for pedestrians and bicycles and now they are talking about truck traffic. He said it is probably a 2-3 inch overlay of asphalt and no footers or solid backing. They probably want to add a couple of feet to that and within a year it will be destroyed by the trucks. They do have a problem with loosing green space there. He is a lifelong resident and they take pride in that area, which is why they want to fix it up. The path is an issue and the other is where the pole is going. He hasn't heard anything about the band. There are 350-400 members of the band and that is where they congregate and organize. He is not saying he is against the pole but they need to consider the band members. He goes to every game and it is hard to 4