Long Grove Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals (PCZBA)

Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2011

Present: Fred Phillips, Chairman, Commissioners Jeff Kazmer, Charles Cohn, Shelly Rubin, Wendy Parr.

Absent: Commissioner Michael Dvorak.

Also present: Village Planner James Hogue; Vic Filippini, Village Attorney and members of the public.

1. Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.

2. Consideration of a request for final plat approval for the subdivision of property to be known as the “Trails End Estates Subdivision” within the R-2 Residential District and\or any additional relief necessary and\or appropriate under the village code to allow subdivision of property on property commonly known as 1889 Checker Road submitted by Orrin Pickell Designers & Builders.

Village Attorney Filippini explained that the documentation required per the preliminary approval had not yet been submitted. As such, this item was not ready for consideration by the PCZBA at this time and needed to be continued to the next meeting.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kazmer, seconded by Commissioner Parr to continue the consideration of the final plat of the Trails End Estates Subdivision to the July meeting of the PCZBA. On a voice vote; all aye.

3. PUBLIC HEARING; Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code to allow co-location of wireless communications antenna on an existing Commonwealth Edison Transmission Tower and related facilities for property located on the north side of and adjacent to Illinois Route 22 and within the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way and zoned under the R-1 & R-2 PUD District classification submitted by Mr. Ray Shinkle on behalf of T-Mobile Corporation.

Chairman Phillips read the request into the record and swore in all witnesses planning to give testimony.

Village Planner Hogue reviewed his staff report for the Commission. As proposed a single antenna platform (containing 12 individual antennas) would be co-located near the top (approx. elevation 146 feet) of the existing Commonwealth Edison Transmission Tower. This tower was constructed sometime between 1946 and 1974 based upon historical aerial photos. Review of the tower by a structural engineer has been performed and no issues relating to the co-location have been identified. Commonwealth Edison has also granted the petitioner the authority to move forward with zoning and permitting approvals for the project.

Additionally, 1,292 square feet of land area would be graveled and used as the “lease pad” (400 sq. ft.) and an access and turnaround easement (892 sq. ft.) for service vehicles to ingress and egress the property.

The “lease pad” area will contain a concrete pad (105 square feet) upon which equipment cabinets will be erected to house accessory equipment used to keep the antennas functioning. This is within the 150 square foot maximum as provided for in the Village Code and will fenced and landscaped per 5-9-6 (B) (7) of the Village Code as well.

The antenna as proposed would be considered a “co-locate” as identified in the Village Code. The Village Code encourages co-location of new wireless communications antenna as opposed to the construction of a new antenna structure. The antennas would be placed within the height limitation for such towers as well.

Per the submittal by the petitioner and review of aerial photography three (3) residential structures exist within 500 foot separation requirement, as identified in the Village Code, (ranging from 339’ to 493’ feet) of the existing transmission tower, proposed antenna and related equipment. Planner Hogue noted this appeared to be for the construction of new monopole towers however this regulation had been applied to co-locations in the past as well.

The petitioner has noted these deficiencies in their application and is seeking relief from this requirement (identified as “variations” in the application). Per the “Special Standards” provision of Section 5-9-5 (C) of the Village Code the PCZBA may alter these standards if it is determined that goals of cell tower regulation are better met. It is noted that separation issues may be altered “if the village concludes that the goals of this chapter are better served thereby”. To that end the PCZBA should evaluate the benefits of co-location (including adequate service to citizens and the traveling public) of the proposed antenna on the existing transmission tower vs. the construction of a new mono-pole tower for the support of the proposed antenna platform.

The existing Village policy supports co-location over the construction of new towers as well as identified in 5-9-6 (B) (3) & (4) as well the “Special Standards” Section 5-9-6 (C) of the Village Code as well. The PCZBA has the authority to recommend a waiver or lessen the standards (strictly speaking not a variation) as identified in 5-9-6 (C) of the Village Code and requested by the petitioner upon evaluation of the request.

Mr. Ray Shinkle the made a “PowerPoint” presentation to the PCZBA on behalf of the petitioner. He further reviewed the technical details of the proposal as these relate to the Long Grove Village Code. He also presented coverage maps which identified the lack of coverage in this area and “gaps’ which would be filled in with antennas at this location. He stressed the public safety aspects of providing better coverage and that this proposal is considered a “co-location”. The Village Code encourages the placement of such antenna on existing support structures or other lawfully existing buildings in lieu of the construction of new support structures.

Mr. Steve Hunt, 6424 RFD, questioned the coverage map and public safety benefits, particularly to the Tall Oaks residents.

Mr. Michael Morrison, 5703 RFD, presented a petition signed by 62 area residents against the proposal. He noted this was as of 6.7.11 and the petition was still being circulated in hopes of gathering more signatures.

Mr. Ray Anderson, 5713 RFD, asked how many customers are in this service area.

Mr. Shinkle responded that the service area was approximately a 1.5 mile radius from the proposed antenna location and estimated 367 customers in this area. Transient coverage was also required.

Many people took exception to this number indicating this estimate of customers was too high given the low density nature of the Village and that area in particular.

Attorney Filippini explained the limitations on the local authority with regard to regulating these types of uses and the Telecommunications Act of 1999. He indicated health issues cannot be considered. The number of carries cannot be limited and any local zoning of such uses must be within the parameters of authority as established by the federal government.

Ms. Pam Newton, 5723 RFD, speaking as a resident, indicated many residents in the neighborhood feel strongly about this request and in particular the petitioner’s request to seek relief from the established standards for such structures. She stated that there are two vacant lots which, when built upon, would have houses substantially closer than the 500’ minimum now required by the Village Code. She further noted the aesthetic concerns of such a structure at an entrance to the Village and suggested the towers on the south side of Route 22 could offer the same coverage and minimize the visual impacts to the community at large. She also stated concerns with property values; EMF’s and urged the PCZBA to maintain the standards for separation as contained within the Village Code. She also thanked T-Mobile for their contact and outreach in attempting to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors.

Mr. Kelley Smith, 5395 RFD, noted that moving the equipment to a tower on the south side of Route 22 would be more difficult as a substantial driveway would need to be installed and would be more disruptive to environmentally sensitive “conservancy property” in that area.

Mr. Ed Hoak, 5423 RFD, agreed with the comments made by Ms. Newton and urged the PCZBA to protect the integrity of this “scenic corridor”. Privacy fences are not acceptable in this location and should be outside of the “corridor”. Scenic Corridors would not allow such an encroachment. Additionally he noted that the Village has historically attracted “quality development”. This proposal was not consistent with past effort of “quality development” within the Village or the open space and scenic corridors which contribute to the Village character.

Ms. Sharon Morrison, 5703 RFD, noted the 500’ separation standard between residences and such facilities. She urged the PCZBA to maintain that standard especially as it relates to the residences which will ultimately be built on the now vacant lots.

Mr. Mark Heiss, 6424 RFD, asked if there was a complaint log for call “dropped” by T-Mobile and what the demand for calls actually is.

Mr. Jack Westheimer, 5720 RFD, indicated T-Mobile works well at home but not at the office near the proposed antenna.

Mr. Michael Morrison, 5703 RFD, asked about the difference between a 3 & 4 section site. He noted that a resident of the neighborhood is a consultant for the telecommunications industry. He was unable to attend the hearing but had reviewed the proposal. He noted (according to Mr. Morrison) the equipment appeared large and outdated and the equipment pad site (20’x25’) was excessive. He felt T-Mobile was using the cheapest alternative possible to erect this antenna.

Ray Shinkle, T-Mobile representative, noted all new proposals are 4 section sites to maximize coverage. He further noted that due to the construction costs, particularly associated with the co-located on the Com-Ed tower, that an investment of $300,000 would need to be made at this site. All equipment proposed was “state-of-the-art” and the site was needed for existing and future coverage for the T-Mobile network.

He then indicated that T-Mobile would be willing to consider reasonable modifications to the request such as a smaller driveway and equipment pad and equipment shelter as opposed to the fenced area. He stated that the existing tower is a dominate feature of the existing landscape and the T-Mobile request had a minimal impact on the existing landscape. Other towers had environmental concerns which made a co-location there prohibitive. He addressed the standards for relief as identified in the Village Code and stated this was an obvious site for a co-location and a good application.

Steve Hunt, 6424 RFD, had concerns with the actual number of emergency calls and the need for this proposal for emergence calls.

Mr. Jorge Cabrales, 5426 RFD, noted he was the closest to the tower he had concerns about EMF’s and health concerns from the antennas and if granted, would this proposal set a precedent for other future antennas on towers in the right-of way. Additionally, he asked about the cumulative effects of health issues from such antennas.

The petitioners engineer responded that emissions of EMF’s from the antennas were very small in the vicinity of 1/10 of 1 % of the acceptable standards for such emissions. Furthermore he noted EPA does not regulate the cumulative effects of multiple antennas. He also noted Com-Ed will not allow multiple antennas on any one of their towers.

Attorney Filippini also noted should the antennas not longer be used (for period of at least 12 months) they would be considered “abandoned” under the provisions of the Village Code and need to be removed.

Commissioner Kazmer noted Route 22 was a state road and had IDOT approved a curb cut at this location for the equipment access?

Mr. Shinkle responded that T-Mobile was working with IDOT to secure a curb cut.

Commissioner Kazmer then asked if T-Mobile must consider our local zoning regulations.

Attorney Filippini reiterated that certain aspects of regulation such as health issues (EMF’s) and the choice of carrier, among others, were preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1999. Aesthetic concerns, such as screening could be determined by the local zoning authority.

Commissioner Kazmer then stated he could not agree with the proposal as presented based upon the aesthetics, location of the proposed equipment area and the potential for future development of the vacant lots.

Commissioner’s Rubin and Parr agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Kazmer.

Commissioner Cohn agreed as to the placement of the proposed ancillary equipment area noting it was too close to residences. He also raised a concern with regard to setting a precedent with future similar requests.

Chairman Phillips agreed with regard to the placement of the ancillary equipment, but noted the antennas in and of themselves did not pose much of a problem.

A motion was made by Commissioner Rubin, seconded by Commissioner Parr, not to accept the amount of relief requested from the requirements of the zoning code for the ancillary structures associated with this request. On a voice vote, all aye.

4. Approval of Minutes; December 7, 2010

Commissioner Parr noted she was not present for this meeting contrary to what the minutes stated. Commissioner Rubin made a motion to approve the December 7, 2010 regular meeting minutes as corrected; Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion; on a voice vote, all aye and no nays.

5. Other Business:

Planner Hogue asked if there would be enough members available for a quorum on the July 5th meeting date or if a special meeting should be held instead as Monday was the 4^th of July Holiday. All members present indicated they were available on the 5^th therefore there should be a quorum.

Planner Hogue then updated the Commission as to potential upcoming agenda items.

6. Adjournment

Commissioner Rubin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Kazmer, on a voice vote; all ayes; no nays. Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

7. Next Regular Meeting: January 4, 2011, @ 7 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

James M. Hogue

Village Planner/PCZBA Secretary Pro-Tem