My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-17BOA minutes
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
10-16-17BOA minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2017 8:53:31 AM
Creation date
11/21/2017 8:53:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />flood map, and aesthetics of the proposed telecommunication facility. He stated that the <br />proposed unipole would not be obtrusive and would not generate any light or noise pollution <br />as well as any additional traffic. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed site was virtually the <br />only site to accommodate the tower that was not located in the flood plain with the <br />exception of the entrance to the Schnuck’s grocery store. The proposed setback from <br />Vernon Avenue was 99 feet in lieu of the required 200 feet, and the proposed setback from <br />the nearest property in the “PA” – Public Activity District was clarified to be 159 feet in lieu <br />of the required 200 feet as per the Zoning Code. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed <br />distance was adequate in terms of an established fall-area for the unipole in situations of <br />emergency if the tower should fall, as the newer unipole towers are designed to collapse in <br />on themselves. He also stated that the proposed setback distances were appropriate as to <br />not create an obtrusion or visual concern from nearby properties. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br /> <br /> <br /> Yvonne Redmond, property owner of 6840 Vernon Avenue, stated that she is the property <br />owner and resident of the dwelling directly east of the “PA” – Public Activity zoned property <br />across Vernon Avenue from the proposed unipole location. She wanted to know the <br />distance between the proposed unipole and her home, which was determined to be 262 <br />feet. She was assured that the unipole will not generate any noise or light from Mr. Martin <br /> <br /> <br /> Ray Gamble, property owner of 6834 Chamberlain Court, stated that he was concerned <br />regarding any effects of the unipole, visual or otherwise, that may impact his property. <br />Given the estimated distance of Mr. Gamble’s property from the proposed unipole location, <br />it was anticipated that there should not be any impacts. <br /> <br /> <br /> Juanna Figueroa, property owner of 6832 Vernon Avenue, stated that she was most <br />concerned with any side effects relating to health, property values, and interference with her <br />current services. She stated that the unipole was not a concern when she purchased her <br />home and does not view it as fair to have this particular unipole in sight from her front yard. <br /> <br />The Board members asked Mr. Martin if other locations had been considered for the <br />unipole. Mr. Martin could not speak to this as he was not part of that process although <br />mentioned that the location was driven through a search ring process. The Board was also <br />interested in the facts and statistics that support why this tower was needed in the proposed <br />location. Mr. Gnaedinger explained that network coverage and capacity were both issues <br />in the area that needed addressed; the size of the search ring and coverage areas could <br />not be provided by the applicant as evidence to the selection of the proposed site. It was <br />also determined that T-Mobile, the intended user of the unipole, would benefit from the <br />granting of a variance. The applicant was encouraging co-location at the unipole. <br />Having no additional requests to speak, the public hearing portion of the case was closed at <br />7:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Marentette asked Ms. Riganti for the staff opinion. Ms. Riganti stated that staff had <br />concerns regarding the variance, and found that the applicant did not adequately provide <br />evidence supporting standards for granting a variance as per 400.2950.1, 2, and 3 of the <br />Zoning Code. Specifically, the applicant did not present evidence that the condition is <br />unique to the property or ordinarily found in the same zoning district; a hardship upon the <br />property owner would be constituted; and the variance would not adversely affect the <br />adjacent properties or public health, safety, order, convenience or general welfare of the <br />community. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.