12/02/2003 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cowncil Minutes of 12/2/2003 Law Director Dubelko agreed and said it is not a question of city government or any member of Council or administration not being sympathetic to safety concerns. It's simply that is not a local issue they can address. This is a federal safety issue. The federal government struck the balance. What it said in the telecommunications act was cities retain local zoning authority to place the towers and permit the antenna. But the decision cannot be based on environmernal effects, such as hazards/safety issues. He is not a telecommunications lawyer, but is speaking as a generalist. The city did hire an expert to come in and address this issue, and the city planned for siting the towers and planned for the location of antennas and provided for regulations of an overlay zoning district that put us in compliance with federal law and gave us an opportunity to plan for it so that we don't have every private property owner in the city putting a tower in. City Council has a duty to pass the zoning regulation. If Council decides to enact the zoning regulation, they are doing it consistent with the information received from the expert hired in 2000. With respect to the waiver, it would not be an issue before BZA. The Planning Commission is given the authority to grant a waiver. It is probably good that the Planning Commission reviews the tower and makes the determination if there is going to be a waiver on certain requirements. When you have two bodies looking at a project, things can fall through the cracks. For example, the anti-lighting requirement, the Planning Commission has the whole picture and can make a judicious decision. The point was raised that there is no lighting on the tower. The reason for that was an attempt to make it less intrusive, less conspicuous. If this comes before Planning Commission, they may say there are benefits to having it on a lighting tower. You're taking a lighting tower and adding 40 feet of antenna. rather than permitting the developer to put his tower 10 or 15 feet away from an existing light tower. They are going to look at all those things, and will make decisions that make sense in accordance with the factors. Mrs. Puinno is putting the cart before the horse. There is a potential for losing perspective. The school board was up front they didn't have to say what was being planned. They could have just asked for the supplemental zoning. The school board and Sprint have both been up front. We are at the zoning stage. There is no proposal at this time. To suggest that they are not being fully honest or suggest that the city government is not acting properly is not fair. It was a good thing that they came forward to give some specif cs of what the development might be even though it is not formally before the city right now. Mrs. Puinno asked how the school property became included in the area set aside for towers. Law Director Dubelko explained that the planner hired by the city did indicate that other sites within the city could be locations, included property owned by the schools and other political subdivisions. Only the city can make the zoning decision. Councilman Miller said his concern is that there are other sites that could be available to Sprint that would not require changes to the code and should be considered. There is city land, including Springvale which could be used. Cell towers are not limited to effectiveness in a one mile radius. His hesitancy is whether we have checked everything else out before we start changing the plan and affecting people's property values. He understands we cannot consider health issues, but we certainly can consider several other issues that have been brought out. Councilman Gareau noted that the federal government is supreme. If they tell us we cannot consider the unsubstantiated or undocumented 12