10-16-17BOA minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flood map, and aesthetics of the proposed telecommunication facility. He stated that the proposed unipole would not be obtrusive and would not generate any light or noise pollution as well as any additional traffic. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed site was virtually the only site to accommodate the tower that was not located in the flood plain with the exception of the entrance to the Schnuck’s grocery store. The proposed setback from Vernon Avenue was 99 feet in lieu of the required 200 feet, and the proposed setback from the nearest property in the “PA” – Public Activity District was clarified to be 159 feet in lieu of the required 200 feet as per the Zoning Code. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed distance was adequate in terms of an established fall-area for the unipole in situations of emergency if the tower should fall, as the newer unipole towers are designed to collapse in on themselves. He also stated that the proposed setback distances were appropriate as to not create an obtrusion or visual concern from nearby properties. Public Comments  Yvonne Redmond, property owner of 6840 Vernon Avenue, stated that she is the property owner and resident of the dwelling directly east of the “PA” – Public Activity zoned property across Vernon Avenue from the proposed unipole location. She wanted to know the distance between the proposed unipole and her home, which was determined to be 262 feet. She was assured that the unipole will not generate any noise or light from Mr. Martin  Ray Gamble, property owner of 6834 Chamberlain Court, stated that he was concerned regarding any effects of the unipole, visual or otherwise, that may impact his property. Given the estimated distance of Mr. Gamble’s property from the proposed unipole location, it was anticipated that there should not be any impacts.  Juanna Figueroa, property owner of 6832 Vernon Avenue, stated that she was most concerned with any side effects relating to health, property values, and interference with her current services. She stated that the unipole was not a concern when she purchased her home and does not view it as fair to have this particular unipole in sight from her front yard. The Board members asked Mr. Martin if other locations had been considered for the unipole. Mr. Martin could not speak to this as he was not part of that process although mentioned that the location was driven through a search ring process. The Board was also interested in the facts and statistics that support why this tower was needed in the proposed location. Mr. Gnaedinger explained that network coverage and capacity were both issues in the area that needed addressed; the size of the search ring and coverage areas could not be provided by the applicant as evidence to the selection of the proposed site. It was also determined that T-Mobile, the intended user of the unipole, would benefit from the granting of a variance. The applicant was encouraging co-location at the unipole. Having no additional requests to speak, the public hearing portion of the case was closed at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Marentette asked Ms. Riganti for the staff opinion. Ms. Riganti stated that staff had concerns regarding the variance, and found that the applicant did not adequately provide evidence supporting standards for granting a variance as per 400.2950.1, 2, and 3 of the Zoning Code. Specifically, the applicant did not present evidence that the condition is unique to the property or ordinarily found in the same zoning district; a hardship upon the property owner would be constituted; and the variance would not adversely affect the adjacent properties or public health, safety, order, convenience or general welfare of the community. Page 3 of 4