PLAINFIELD Board OF ZONING APPEALS March 16, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 CALL TO ORDER PLAINFIELD Board OF ZONING APPEALS March 16, :00 p.m. Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for March 16, 2015 ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our board secretary if he will please have a roll call. Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- here Mr. Cavanaugh- here Ms. Duffer- here Mr. Gibbs- here Mr. Monnett- here We have 5 members present we have a quorum for conducting business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Monnett: Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Monnett: I will entertain a motion for approval or amendments of our minutes from our meeting of February 19, Mr. Gibbs: I move we accept as written. Ms. Duffer: I will second. Mr. Monnett: We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Monnett reviewed the guidelines of public hearings PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Monnett: Our petition tonight is BZA Central States tower. Mr. James: Good evening. This is a request of a special exception to allow construction of a new cell tower. The location and address for the proposed cell tower site is 4015 Clark s Creek Road. This is east of Clark s Creek Road and it is also east of State Road 267. The property is zoned to AG. A new cell tower is allowed in all zoning districts and it is regulated by article 4.6 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Article 4.6 establishes standards and criteria that have to Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

2 be met in order to approve new cell towers. The proposed site is within 220 of State Road 267 and the Fire Station and the water tower. This is the site it is 100 by 100 leased area the actual fence will be 80 by 80. This is leased area and then this is the fenced area, this is Clark s Creek Road it does comply with the required setback from Clarks Creek Road. This is an aerial view of the property; it would be this little 100 by 100 area down here. Here is the fire station and the water tower. Clarks Creek Road, Metropolis Parkway, and 267. In the AG zoning, you have AG to the south and the Fire Station is in the OD Office District. The standards of article 4.6 need to show a need for the tower and also provide a master plan. Is there a need for service in this area and have all efforts been made to co-locate the antennas on an existing structure? They were told they could not colocate on the water tower and they have provided a coverage map. Complying height and setback, it can t be over 120 tall. The tower including the antenna will be right at 120. it complies with the setback and it also complies with the airspace overlay district which limit s the height of structures because of the airport, the Indianapolis Airport and so it is in the conical service approach area and so that limit s the height at 1,088 and it is well below that at grade height. Location, it can t be within 5,000 of another cell tower. They have provided a map that shows the 5,000 radius that there is not tower within 5,000. The compound, structures, and landscaping must be enclosed with the fence. They must have level 3 perimeter landscaping and then there is an effort made to blend in the equipment buildings in with surrounding buildings the building will be standard prefab building that are used, the most common use for these. Visual impacts, the site must minimize visual impacts to residential areas, public ways, historical vistas and vistas in general and that would not be visually prominent. The nearest residential is Lakeside Apartments on the west side of 267. There are no historical impacts, but it is within a gateway corridor, that being at 267. Then the zoning to the east is I-2. Use standards and regulations. Must be able to carry at least 3 other service providers and this tower can carry 4. It has to be engineered to comply with the EIA 222 Standards and they have provided a letter that states that it does comply with those standards. It must comply with all FCC and FAA regulations, the tower cannot interfere with other signals and the engineer states that the tower will operate at different frequency spectrums, so there is a slim chance that it will interfere with what is on the water tower and the existing Hendricks County Communications equipment or future Hendricks County Communication equipment and if it does interfere then it must be resolved. So here is the master plan they show. This is the site, these are existing towers, these are their coverage maps the site is right here. I am just going to show the maps to you, I m not going to try to explain it to you. This map shows the current service, this is a post plot with selected site with existing and another AT&T tower then post plot with the existing tower and the alternative. They have provided their master plan in their coverage map. Here is the tower, it will be 115 tall plus it is with the antenna it will be under the 120 plus with the antenna they will be under the 120. It is a monopole type which is required by article here is the antenna array. The one array will be located on top of the tower and there are 3 other potential locations for additional antenna arrays. This is a map, the pens show the existing towers, this is their proposed site so these are existing towers in the area and then there is their coverage showing there is no existing tower within that 5,000 radius. It will Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

3 have the chain link fence, landscaping plan it does comply with the level 3. Here are drawings for the equipment building and then there is the photographs of standard prefab buildings and this is the view heading north on 267, that is about the approximate area where the tower will go. That s a view looking from the north heading south. So the tower and Fire Station should help screen it from that view but it will be more prominent at this view. This is from Clark s Creek Elementary. There is a view looking to the east and then they ve inserted the tower to give you an idea what it would look like. So another requirement is this had to go to our Design Review Committee. They reviewed it by and they made the final motion and DRC acknowledges the petition complies with the required height, type setback and landscaping does not support the proposed location. Should the BZA approve the petition the DRC recommends a mesh fabric on the fence for additional screening with the color being optional and 2 supports any additional condition imposed by the BZA. So while the proposed tower complies with the required article 4.6 standards like type of tower, height, setback, airspace overlay district, distance from another tower, engineering and landscaping. There are still some unresolved questions. Can the antenna be co-located on the water tower, what are the visual impacts to the State Road 267 Street Scape and is this an appropriate location and use within the Gateway corridor? Then 3 is the site compatible with the Quaker Boulevard Corridor master plan? That is a corridor improvement plan that the Town is currently in the initial stages of implementing, the Town is going to add landscaping and decorative street lights to improve the Street Scape of Quaker Boulevard. With that I will have a seat, there are repetitive here and I am sure they will be glad to answer your questions. Mr. Monnett: Is there anyone representing the petitioner that would like to come forward? Mr. Gooden: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board, Counsel. Will Gooden with Law Firm Clark Quinn, LLP here representing Central State tower and Verizon Wireless on this on this special use exception request. Our offices are at 320 N. Meridian Street, Suite 1100 in Indianapolis. Here with me tonight is Elizabeth Williams from our office. Also present is Lee Barker from GDP Group, they prepared design and site engineering and some of the site plans and drawings that you see here tonight and also present with his daughter is Mr. Noble Stout who owns the property on which the proposed tower is located. As indicated this is a request for a special use exception under the ordinance a tower being permitted with the special use exception and I just direct you to the packet of information that I have provided that we have prepared and it just kind of carries through and provides some of the information that Mr. James provided in his report which he covered a lot of the information that I don t cover but to just highlight it and obviously be available for any questions. Again if you look at the, this will give you a clearer picture I think at tab 1, in the materials that we have given you, the overall site plan. Indicating the boundaries of this property and then the location down in the lower left, that would be southwest corner of the property of the leased area. Looking at that drawing to the left there is a rectangle just immediately to the left and a little bit above the leased area and a circle that represents the Fire Station and the water tower, the location of those. Then looking at tab 2 you ve got a Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

4 little bit tighter view, considerably tighter view of the leased area. As staff indicated it is a 100 by 100 area. As indicated on the plan, the proposed tower in the center and noted on this diagram there is a rectangle to the right of the proposed tower and that would be the equipment shelter for Verizon Wireless, the first locator on the tower, there are also dashed rectangles that would indicate the areas reserved for the 3 other future co-locations of equipment to locate the equipment shelters. On the third tab, this indicates the landscaping plan as Mr. James indicated. One thing to note in addition to the landscaping that fits the level 3 requirement there will be as requested by the design review committee if this petition is approved fabric provided across the chain link fence to further screen the leased area and the equipment shelter. So that has been provided for and indicated would be obviously installed if the petition is approved. Looking at the 4 tab again here is the elevation of the tower, one thing just to point out on the elevation, it does show Verizon Wireless antennas mounted at a 100 center line, it shows sort of shadowed drawings of the 3 other co-locations that would come after. I would note that one of the co-locations would actually be above the Verizon center line, sort of where that oval is near the top center of the tower then with 2 below that for a total of 4. There is a scale drawing then at the bottom showing some cross hatching indicating the fabric or the screening fabric that would be stretched across the chain link fence. Tab 5 is the statement from the Verizon Radio Frequency Engineer s that as Mr. James indicated shows the results that were conducted on interference and a negative result of the test, the negative report means that there are no AM stations within the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission mandated distance and that would not cause any issues regarding any neighboring AM stations. This is also true for the microwave point to point multi point cellular communications that operate in the area. Once again as Mr. James indicated this industry is heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration and is required to comply with all of those federal regulations and obviously we will do so. Tab 6 there is an indication here of the need, the basis for, why a new tower? Why a new tower in this location? This is a site that will not only will provide enhanced cellular telephone service but will offload data from the nearby towers, the other towers in the area and provide data, the enhanced data coverage. Again this is the situation where development which is occurring and continues to occur in this area like many others, increased development, increased population, and increased use of streaming videos, need for online data. Services have increased with people using multiple devices, using cellular devices in place of landlines and things of that nature. So it will not only provide enhanced cellular telephone coverage but it will also offload data workload from the nearby towers and provide a better experience for cellular data users over the air data users. The property as I said, Mr. Stout s property, I want to touch back on that quickly. If you look back at the first tab in relation to the properties it is important to note that the majority of this parcel is still used by the owner for farming and is farmed actively. If you look on the north east corner there is a wooded area that is indicated there in both photograph and the line drawing. That portion of the property has been donated by Mr. Stout for a municipal park that will be developed there. The remaining area used for farming is benefited most if this proposed lease area is moved to the farthest southwest corner of the property Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

5 possible. That frees up uninterrupted space and allows that to continue to be farmed with the opposite corner, the northeast corner then that will serve as the park. So the location of this particular leased area is intentional and provides the best use of that property, the remaining part of that property for the agricultural purposes. Tab 7, this is an indication from the Verizon Wireless Engineer and an explanation of the maps that follow, Mr. James talked about that and so just by the way of further explanation in that same tab 7 following the first page there is the site plan that denotes the existing tower sites along with the red dot in the center which is near the center which is the proposed site. To explain a little bit more on the maps that Mr. James showed the next one it says GN Clarks Creek- current in the upper left. This is currently without the proposed new site. These are coverage areas the blue, the purple, the orange, the red that are provided by the nearby towers. The black sort of oval that looks like the Indianapolis Motor Speedway from the air is the search area or area of concentration for determination of where based upon the data, customer feedback, and radio frequency reports that the company searched to find the optimal location for this tower. What is important to remember in these sorts of situations is the location of this tower needs to be in an area that it provides the most benefit and offloads the most from the nearby towers. If it is located too close to an existing tower A you run the risk of interference between the 2 towers at the same frequency and B you also run the risk that doesn t provide enough relief sort of speak, or enough benefit or increased benefit. So it has to be close enough but not too close to the existing towers and as centrally located as possible. If you then flip to the next page which has the yellow indicated and it says post plot with selected site, in the center there it says the GN Clark s Creek, this is how the new site will offload and provide assistance to the sites that are there currently. The tab following that was an indication of what would happen so the yellow again with the new site if the proposed site was placed on an existing AT&T monopole tower in the area. That would not offload equally and as effectively from the other existing towers so there is a graphic depiction of that and that tab. Then finally the following page is there is an existing tower a little bit further to the west where it shows what the situation would be if a location was entered on that existing SBA tower and again depicted with the sort of broken up colors within the yellow, which would be the new coverage. The coverage would not be as determined by the Radio Frequency Engineer s would not be as effective. Then finally here on the last page is the selected new site location. It is a good opportunity to mention at this point that Verizon or Central States or our clients do not prefer to build raw tires, do not prefer to seek of raw landsite but would always attempt to co-locate. It is faster, cheaper and it can be put in place a lot quicker than developing a new tower site. What is most important ultimately even though that is sometimes expedient or convenient if it doesn t do the job as far as providing the enhanced coverage that customers a public safety, any users over the air data cellular communications need and require then it is necessary to locate on raw land and provide a new tower. On tab 8 are the photo simulations that Mr. James indicated without and with the tower at the various locations, specifically picked here from the Clark s Creek Elementary School to give you an indication of that particular view. The cellular equipment could not be located on the water tower. Representatives of the Fire Department were contacted, there were 2 reasons for this, they indicated there was not enough Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

6 ground space and they were not interested in having another wireless communication facility placed on top of the towers as I understand it and know this will soon be the new location of the service center with related equipment obviously necessary to that. So it would have served as a satisfactory coverage location, it was not possible to locate on that tower for the reasons that I indicated. I would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Mr. Brouillard: I have a question on tab 1; you mentioned the site that you are looking at is in the lower left. There is an L shaped x out area, do you know what that is? Mr. Gooden: I am not sure I can answer that question. It is the existing fence. Mr. Gibbs: considered? Can you give us some idea of other locations that you have Mr. Gooden: Well obviously the nearby water tower, consideration was given to the BSA existing cell tower and the AT&T tower within that search area because for obvious reasons but they don t provide the enhanced coverage in the service that this would. Mr. Gibbs: And whereabouts is that? Mr. Gooden: If you go to the number 7 first page, the map with the yellow stars show other towers in the area and then if you go to 1, 2, 3 back from that, the one that says post plot with the existing AT&T monopole tower. The existing AT&T monopole tower would be located if you flip back to the aerial photo that has the yellow stars, that is to the north northwest indicated by new yellow being more expanded and larger to that northeast area. The existing BSA tower is located to the southwest which shows on the diagram with the yellow area being enhanced further to the southwest from the existing Clark s Creek. Mr. Gibbs: But you don t have a location map that can show where the other properties are. Mr. Gooden: The aerial photo that is the first, yes so the stars, the yellow stars. Ms. Williams: Elizabeth Williams and I am a Land Use Planner with the same address as Will. What they have done is, this is a custom (inaudible) site so even though Central States tower is building the tower, they are building it so that Verizon can go on this tower and so those are the objectives and those are the maps we are using and justifying where it needs to go. The other sites that were considered being the existing towers are only shown in these coverage maps and when you look at those, what they are trying to do if you look at this map and the very first one and it has in the middle of this oblong rectangle the white label that has Clark s Creek that is the area they are concerned about. That is where this is a capacity site, not a coverage site, so it means you got a signal there you can make a call but whether it is from the shopping area or other industry and things that are going on there, there is more data going through there and it is slowing down and they are getting customer responses that are unsatisfactory so they are trying to offload these 2 white spots that Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

7 correlate with the stars on the first page where Verizon is located at least 25 percent off both of those towers. That is the objective in choosing the site. So as they looked at it they first went to the Fire Station and asked them if they co-locate there. I have talked to Mr. Stone of the Hendricks Operation and go into that and explain, at the time when they were starting this months and months ago, they went to the Fire Station and got that answer and relied on that and went on to find other suitable solutions for the problem. When you go to the first map where the yellow pops up, each color represents what an individual tower, there signal, so it is taking off from this orange and this blue and creating this and that is what they feel is the optimum and the letter that the RF Engineer wrote along with it, they looked at another site and on these if you look at them they call it the same because whatever tower they built they were going to call Clark s Creek, but it is located in a different spot because this one is the AT&T tower as Will said, to the southeast and it pulls it too far from this tower up in the northwest portion of the town and the SBA tower is way up here, so then you get way to far from both of them. So they try to find a tower they can co-locate on or a tall structure they can co-locate on as their first preference and if that doesn t work that is when they start looking for raw ground. They were fortunate enough to find Mr. Stout and work with him. They were trying to be sensitive and one of the first questions that we got when we went to the technical advisory committee meeting was where was it located within relationship with the park that Mr. Stout is providing for the Town so that it would be away from that. This also kind of tucks this behind his barn and out of the way of his operation. He also owns the next large portion of ground to the south of this parcel where at the very south end of this parent property but next large parcel is also owned by Mr. Stout. Does that help? Mr. Gibbs: statement. looked at. It does, I just wanted to make sure I am making a true But this is actually the only raw piece of land that you Ms. Williams: The very last map is another location they looked at. Once they come up with that area that is the area of concern, they first look for existing structures then they look for something that is zoned correctly and where we can in Plainfield get a special exception, we are not asking for a lot of variances. There was another raw land site which was the last map in that packet and again it was further from the optimum because what they want to do is when it starts pulling that, in this case I said we have that oblong rectangular shape, when it starts pulling away from the center of that then ultimately it ll end up being something they call splitting the ring and it results in having to build 2 towers instead of 1, so if they can accomplish the goal with 1 tower rather than having to build 2 towers, that is what they are striving for. So they did look at other raw ground sites. Mr. Carlucci: Can I ask you a question, who is Mr. Stone? Mr. Williams: I m sorry, not Stone, Cook. I didn t have my notes in front of me, Steve Cook, I spoke with him. Mr. Monnett: This last picture that you have of the raw land the one that you just had up as a possible other site and you mentioned splitting the ring. You couldn t put a tower there; you couldn t put Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

8 the tower there with that last site maybe with a booster to pick up the site where you want to go? I don t know if I am explaining that right. Mr. Wooden: I guess that question would apply to any other potential location. Is it possible to locate somewhere that wouldn t be optimal but somehow kind of boost the signal or something along those lines, is that what you are asking? Ms. Williams: I can tell you and I don t mean to interrupt you we are constantly, and I have them on file in Avon and other places in Hendricks County and throughout Indiana they are doing exactly what you are talking about, they are optimizing their existing site by adding amplifiers, remote control radio units that allow Mr. Monnett: Those are all existing right? Ms. Williams: Right. Mr. Monnett: So could you put a new tower at a further spot to the east and still get the same kind of coverage at this spot. Ms. Williams: No. Mr. Monnett: Why? Ms. Williams: Engineer Well that is where I would need the Radio Frequency Mr. Monnett: I am just asking because I know there are boosters, I am using the wrong term probably, but I know there Ms. Williams: There is lots of new equipment and they have us constantly, every time they do anything to a tower, whether they upgrade an antenna or they put on an amplifier or the radio control units, the diplexers, there is all of these nifty new things that they can do to optimize the signal and make the most of what they got and they do that first. Mr. Monnett: I brought this up because I am really concerned about the location where this is proposed obviously because it is a gateway corridor for Plainfield. Ms. Williams: like I said we learn a lot from the RF Engineer s and I did go to Purdue, but I am not a RF Engineer, so to answer more in depth we would need to ask them to attend a meeting to answer those questions for you. But all of these documents we have presented to you tonight they are constantly in the business of trying to hone that in the best they can and optimize everything that they have and ultimately I think that the answer is, since they are not here is that if they did that they d be coming back and be having to build another one. They are so expensive that they try not to do that to solve an issue. At the height that it is there are, I noticed that what Joe was talking about as far as seeing it when you are on 267, when I was coming to the hearing today there are also several in the foreground right where it is going to be several power lines that I don t think that it is going to be drastically different between the water tower and power lines that are there now. We would be happy if you wanted to hear more to Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

9 try to get a Radio Frequency Engineer to attend a hearing. Mr. Gooden: I guess just briefly just to build on that, on your question. Ultimately you ve got to have to remember your first option is locate on an existing tall structure, by far that is their preference, so if its gutter all in then you also have a limitations of finding just obviously a willing landowner, land use regulations, you got Metropolis Mall obviously to the east and so once you start throwing all of those variables in you start to come, and then having the requirement of a specific area, precise area, pretty precise area, you start to run out of options. So then combined with that it is important and I don t think it is possible to over emphasize the fact that it is a benefit for everyone to minimize the total number of towers. So if we get it right from an Engineering standpoint and get it located in the best possible spot given all the circumstances and limitations and the n the chances of another tower in an immediate area is going to be necessary for any user for any such a tower, you can never say never but it is very unlikely. Whereas, if it is off a little bit, you ve got that possibility for another need. Mr. Brouillard: I just want to make sure I am looking at this right. Your selected raw land site, I will call it proposed site and your next page the existing 18 AT&T monopole, if you compare those 2 yellow areas, they look pretty close to the same, I am not going to say exactly the same, but I just wanted to make sure that I was kind of looking at that within maybe 30% Ms. Williams: It shifts it so you get these 2 towers here you are getting a lot further away from here and a lot closer to here so you are not (inaudible). Mr. Brouillard: Okay, but if you did the AT&T existing pole it just wouldn t be ideal, it would help out, but it wouldn t be the ideal condition, like you said it wouldn t meet your objective of what you are trying to do. Ms. Williams: Well and I think when you start thinking about if they don t try to do the best they can with the tower locations they wind up with a network that, there would be a lot more towers then it starts to look like a spider web and have to talk to each other and pull it this way then it is not stable to do the next leg sort of speak. So they try not to do that because they are not trying to make this look like something just so they can build a tower. I see it all the time where they say that will work and then they build on it. The other thing that I would mention is in your deliberations, 120 tower, this isn t going to be lit so it is not going to draw attention to itself and it is an Economic Development tool as well. Your industries, you have a lot of new things out in this corridor of Plainfield. It is important to industry and businesses to be able to have all of that data and to be able to work all of the devices that are difficult to (inaudible) these days. So I would hope that that would be a part of important to your gateway as well. Mr. Gooden: Also just kind of on your question specifically on that graphic depiction, Mr. Brouillard. If you look at probably a better comparison from a graphic standpoint anyway. So if you look at the current map, which is the first one after the aerial photograph and Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

10 kind of grab the one behind it which is the proposed location and keep it with it. The AT&T tower location would create virtually no improvement to the north, so in other words that north the orange and the red coverage areas from those existing towers do look, basically from my untrained eye almost identical to the current situation, and so said differently north of Main Street and up north through of Township Line you would see no improvement from where it is currently whereas with the proposed location there is quite a dramatic increase in improvement, so with that location you are offloading optimality from all of the surrounding locations and providing a benefit more seamless use and data availability than you would with that AT&T tower. For the lack of a better term, with the AT&T location you are kind of improving an area that doesn t need it more than it needs to be and you are not getting any improvement geographically at least to the north. Mr. Brouillard: That is a good point, what I did, I drew a box very similar to your proposed site box on the next page and it seemed like from a percentage standpoint the yellow on the proposed site was almost identical to the yellow in the box of the AT&T monopole. I didn t take it any further Mr. Gooden: Right within that area that is correct, that is actually a very good point, that is a good way to demonstrate by example why the search area is what it is but the coverage will actually expand out to pick up existing to offload workload sort of speak from the existing towers. Mr. Cavanaugh: I have a couple of questions. First of all it doesn t seem to me but maybe you do but do we know 100% factually that the Verizon antenna cannot be successfully located on the water tower. Mr. Gooden: Again that is a ray of frequency question. I think successfully it may very well be, obviously it is nearby Mr. Cavanaugh: (inaudible) not have any interference. So success includes not having any interference. Mr. Gooden: If there were any interference at any time from any location would be required to be resolved, but it was just a matter that they just didn t want it there. Mr. Cavanaugh: I will be upfront and say that share Mr. Monnett s concern about the location as a town moves forward with improvements in the gateway corridor on Quaker Boulevard this is a forever decision. Since that tower is there I don t think I have experienced any that go somewhere else, so this is kind of a forever decision. Then I might have a different question maybe, Rich for you, within the Town structure and I realize that the County dispatch center is not necessarily in the Town s structure, but who would really decide whether that was an appropriate pole locate on the tower? What I am hearing is now do we want it there Mr. Daniel: Kevin, could I ask a question before we to that? Could you tell me Mr. Gooden who contacted Plainfield Fire Department and asked that question? Mr. Gooden: I don t have the answer to that question. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

11 Ms. Williams: It was a site acquisition person and basically we are on our 3 rd site acquisition specialist for this site but we did reach out to him. Mr. Daniel: Who is this that you reached out too? Ms. Williams: They use site acquisition specialists to find the site and I cannot think of his name right now, I can get that for you and he was, I may be able to look it up on my phone, but he was trying to come up with a card whoever he talked to at the Fire Station when he went there. That was the first thing that he did. Mr. Daniel: That is my next question, who did he talk to there? Ms. Williams: Exactly, someone at the Fire Department and we are not in a position, we are in an unfortunate position tonight because of this, but we don t go and ask a land owner and the Fire Department can we co-locate and they say no then we go back and say I wonder if there is someone else we can ask. Mr. Daniel: No did you make any effort to get the written statement from the Fire Department? Ms. Williams: Well I said that is my site acquisition person and not our office, so I think it was pretty clear they don t ask for written statements, but they rely on them as representatives of the Town of Plainfield. Mr. Daniel: But we don t even know who that is ma am, we are here tonight and we don t know who called, who they talked to, and there is nothing in the record here that the Fire Department has ever said you cannot co-locate on that tower. Mr. Gooden: We are just giving the information that we are provided, but certainly we would be happy to do what we can to supplement that. AS far as a specific individual, but it was made clear by the site acquisition folks that that would just not be a possibility, otherwise they would have looked at doing it. Mr. Daniel: Even your petitioner said that would be ideal for your company if they could put it on that tower. It seems to me a pretty important issue I think. Mr. Gooden: Well for that reason they certainly would have done it if they could and I don t know Ms. Williams: We do know the name of the site acquisition person. Mr. Daniel: Okay. Mr. Gooden: Yes we can get in touch with that person. Jeff Woofly is the name of the site acquisition person. Mr. Williams: We reached out to him to try to get more information and since he has changed positions, that is not your issue but it is difficult, there was a reliance there in making that contact and they Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

12 have gone forward and spent a lot of money trying to come forward with another site that would work. Mr. Daniel: I think the board here would like something in writing from the Fire Department before they would rely on saying that some site acquisition person talked to somebody at the Fire Department who said that they didn t think it should go on the water tower there but the board can look into that as much as they choose. Mr. Cavanaugh: I think that is a gap in knowledge that we have and I am not saying that the previous acquisition person didn t exercise their due diligence, (inaudible) record or anything information to go by. Other than that a phone call was made, someone said no that won t work and so we are here looking at a brand new tower instead of a colocate opportunity on an existing structure. I would like to know a little bit more about why that couldn t happen and it could be that is the case and then fine, but right now we have a big gap in our knowledge and I think that hinders my comfort level with moving forward with that. The other question I have is in your maps and I don t have a tab number, I just have a map from the submittal, but you have the Clark s Creek post plot with the selected site, so as it is proposed and then the Clark s Creek post plot ultimate draw land (inaudible) which is a site off of Metropolis Parkway. The note on there is that this is the ultimate raw land location, or excuse me, this alternate wall and land location will work with regard to RF coverage but this site was not selected because of leasing issues. Just from my perspective looking at these maps they are not identical but they are pretty dag gone close and I would expect that they are within the range of tolerance from all the exceptions noted at the top of each map. So I would be curious to know what type of leasing issues were encountered for this alternate site that might be better and maybe levitate some more appearance concerns. Mr. Gooden: In short, there was just an inability to come to an agreement with the property owner for whatever reason I don t know at this time and again that would be something that would be within the specific knowledge of the site acquisition representative. But it is just one of those situations where that is what happens in this situation, you might find another location another raw land location which is second best option to an existing high structure, but for whatever reason they couldn t come to an agreement with the land owner. Or and that could be everything that we found a site that works and we went to the landowner and they said absolutely no interest to let s talk about the terms and then they couldn t come to an agreement, I just don t know the specifics and I don t know that Elizabeth does today or not. Mr. Cavanaugh: So particularly that site could work but you couldn t make a deal for whatever reason. Mr. Gooden: Probably a fair summarization of it. Mr. Cavanaugh: Speaking for me as one member of the board, my largest concern is the proximity to the Quaker Boulevard. Is there opportunity within Mr. Stout s property to push that back further? Because I don t think that 1,000 people would waiver another within this property would make that much of a difference in the coverage and I am just wondering Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

13 if there is an alternate location in that property that might serve your purposes that would be agreeable to Mr. Stout and we get this further away from our gateway corridor. Mr. Gibbs: I know we haven t opened it up for the public at this point, but one of the things that concerns me a great deal is the permanency along the gateway corridor. Mr. Monnett: I agree. Mr. Gibbs: And I know that this evening that we are only talking about Verizon being the one attachment to this. But the way I am looking at this maybe a little bit different in the fact that there is 4 business potentials right here on this one site, we are asked to make this permanent decision based on one of those businesses and not the other 3, so it is only 1/4 th, that concerns me a lot. Mr. Gooden: Mr. Cavanaugh just brief to answer your question, moving it within the existing property, you don t have to go very far at all which will change the latitude and longitude coordinates of the tower and we just simply require the process to be started over from a radio frequency analysis and so on and so forth. That s really the only quote or unquote limitations. We d just have to redo the whole process and I don t know what they would elect to do based on that, having spent the money and the time to do it and how that changes things of that nature. That would be a pretty significant Mr. Cavanaugh: It may be under the limit but do they have a FAA (inaudible) permit? Mr. Gooden: You mean a statement of no interference from the FAA? Mr. Cavanaugh: Yes. Mr. Gooden: I don t know that one is required in this situation. Ms. Williams: (inaudible) but it is like moving a dinosaur if we move the tower and the due diligent that worked to get to today to be before you and ask the permission from this board. (Inaudible) FCC and the FFA and you put all that regulatory process to move it and we have the ability to kind of tweak it around within about 50 before it requires you to basically start over. So you just lost all the money and time in the last 8 months. Mr. Cavanaugh: I can appreciate that difficulty but it might be time well spent to get a little further down the road on general locations before all of that investment was made. I might have censored that but frankly that is not our concern. Mr. Gooden: The other issue just from a limiting perspective on that is as the design review indicated that getting it as far away from what will be the new park as possible within the same site was something that they thought was very important, so the opposite corners is as far as you can get. Ms. Williams: (Inaudible) with the unfortunate situation of the contact with the Fire Department. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

14 Mr. Cavanaugh: you. I don t have any other questions at this time, thank Mr. Gooden: One other thing to point out, just on that issue on that location within the proposed property, in addition to moving it farther away from the, as far away as possible from the site from the park is that you locate the lease area in such a manner that it is screened by the existing barn and the fire house from the road. Also if some, I suppose it is subjective but when you ve got 2 existing structures and I think in tab 8, the photograph there with the photo simulation, it has the corner of the water tower and the cell tower imposed on it. If you look at the 2 taller structures of similar height closer together you tend to detract, you don t see one over here and then one over here so pulling it to the corner of the site had some overall benefit, there were definitely some thought process into that. But just something else to mention on that particular issue. Mr. Brouillard: One of the things that I was thinking because it is a esthetical, when I look at that water tower there is a sense of pride because it says Plainfield, you know as you are coming into Plainfield, I don t know if I would have that same sense of pride looking at your tower, there is no value to me. Mr. Gibbs: Along with if the tower is there then the Town goes ahead with their corridor plan that is how I feel too. Mr. Monnett: For their standpoint it is like they have 2 choices; find out who you talked to at the Fire Department and move the tower to that far corner. It can be done, the elevation is not going to change that much the elevation is not going to change that much, the frequency is not going to change that much, the data will not change at all. I can t imagine it would change that much if you moved it further to the east. If they want a freestanding structure versus that they could colocate that works out with the water tower, but it is just too close to 267 for me. Mr. Gooden: So on that note would it be helpful then not only to determine obviously get some sort of statements specifically from the Fire Department but also given the change that is going to occur with the center to get some feedback from them as well specifically on that issue. Mr. Monnett: I know I mentioned something about the Fire Department, I don t know if they even have the jurisdiction sort of say to do that from the Fire Department to say yay or nay if they can co-locate. Would that would be something for the Town Council to take up? Mr. Carlucci: Town Council. Mr. James: Steve Cook who is the Director of the Hendricks County Communication Center. His one concern after talking to his engineer which is the Motorola Engineer, they are going to install some microwave antennas for when they make the move to the Fire Station. Their one concern is they wanted to make sure that the tower was not in the direct line with, between the microwave and the Mooresville center. That was their one concern. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

15 Mr. Monnett: Any more questions for the petitioner? I will ask the public if they have anything they would like to say for or against this if you would like you can please come forward. Mr. Stout: My name is Noble Stout, our family has been in the area for 130 years and Rich and Mel knows we ve cooperated with the Town on every angle through the years. Now we want a little favor and I don t come back and I don t go very well. If it would work on the water tower why wouldn t it work on a tower over there by the water tower? That doesn t make any sense to me of course I am not a smart man but I ve worked hard all my life to get what I got and it go very well with me. That is what I got to say. Ms. Duffer: Thank you. Ms. Stout: My name is Donna Stout I live at 1415 Oliver, Plainfield, Indiana. I ve been listening and I am not smart girl either but I understand your questions I listen to all of what you said, but what I don t understand is you are saying that it is too close to 267. Mr. Monnett: It is within 600 of a gateway corridor that the Town established many years ago, as far as what can go up size and everything. Ms. Stout: The reason what I didn t understand about that is that it is going to look the same if you moved it back. You are going to be able to see it if you move it farther down the fence row or keep it at the current spot. That was really my question, to hear you say you have pride when you see that, me too. I ve lived in Plainfield all my life, I get that, but as far as seeing it I think you will still be able to see it if you moved it. So it is more that it is in the corridor, it is not a matter of the sight of it is why you want it moved if it were to be put up. Am I making sense? Mr. Monnett: Yes. If it were further east it won t be infringing on the gateway corridor at all. I can still see it, but it is not going to be as prevalent if it is on the east. Ms. Stout: Gotcha that was my question. Mr. Monnett: The elevations aren t going to change that much, frequency nothing is going to get dropped, it can t it would be Mr. James: the east. If you are going 55 mph you better not be looking far to Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone else, please come forward. Mr. McPhail: For the record I am Kent McPhail, 7764 Harnessmaker Court, Plainfield, Indiana. I am a member of the Plainfield Town Council and I am here to express some concerns from Council members. I think you ve probably touched on all of those issues. 1. We are concerned about public safety. As far as I know we have not had a study that will indicate when we relocate this center whether this will have any effect on that or not. I will certainly like to see before anything goes in that general area I would like to see a study Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals

16 done by our communication people to make sure that would not interfere with that. I am sure the petitioners were not aware of that when they started this process but we are in the process of making that relocation. I would like to make a comment about the water tower. They indicated that they spoke to Plainfield Fire Territory about that, I will submit to you that the Fire Territory has no governing authority over that water tower, so they went to the wrong agency if they wanted to know. So they really need to contact the administration at the Town. We made that water tower available a few years ago for this type of thing to limit the number of towers because we knew this was coming and we are trying to limit the number of towers around. This is within a gateway corridor and we are in the process of spending several million dollars on that corridor, if you haven t been down there they are working near I-70 in the medians so any distraction from that investment we would discourage. I guess the other thing I got to say, these are good business people. I have a Verizon instrument on my hip and I think most of the town employees use Verizon so we want to make sure they ve got the coverage that they need. I think they have to have a plan B and I didn t see the bay you have been looking at but certainly they have to have a plan B. Finally I would like to say that Mr. Stout has probably been one of the strongest supporters of our community and if we can figure out a way for this to be located maybe further east on his property I certainly think that would work and I think if we got to the east of it, it certainly would solve the gateway corridor problem and hopefully if there is any conflict with the center it may be far enough away to do that. Thank you very much and thank you for all of your work. Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone else that would like to speak for or against this petition please come forward now. Seeing none I will open it up to our board for discussion or a possible motion. Ms. Duffer: I think I am going to agree with the comments that were made this evening that I am not sure if we have all of the information to make a decision on the current petition that is before us tonight. I think and with Mr. McPhail s information the Fire Territory doesn t have the authority to say yes or no to co-locate a cell tower. So I think we need to determine those pieces of information before we move on. Mr. Carlucci: Typically I don t say too much at these meetings, Noble has been around for a long time, my wife s grandfather, he reminds me of my grandfather and what a great job that he s done over the years. I think we should give this a chance to let them go back and come back with their best estimates and let s see if we can get this done. Mr. Cavanaugh: I am going to stick to my previous comment I am not in favor of the location that is currently proposed, but I don t think we have enough information to rule out the opportunity to co-locate on the water tower, there is a technical aspect to that as well as to who has the authority to approve that if were suitable. I would like to have the answer to that and in its current location I think there are alternatives that would provide the same coverage of an obvious close to the gateway corridor as it is proposed. I have a procedural question I guess, Mel if we were to continue this does that give the petitioner the opportunity to come back under the same filing with changes? Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals