Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 05/20/2010 - ZONING VARIATION/26 WALPOLE/DOCKET 10-3 ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes May 20, 2010 Present: P.Kaplan, Chairman J. Oliveto L. Dohrer G. Schumm J. Walz S. Carlson D. Childress Absent: J. Meister, Sr. Staff: J. Polony, Plan Reviewer, Community Development D. Miller, Fire Chief, Fire Department Zoning Variation —Docket # 10-3—26 Walpole Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read a statement describing the hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. Mr. Kaplan proceeded to read an anonymous letter written by a neighbor indentifying concerns about the new antenna installation. The petitioner, James Collins, was sworn in and asked to present his case. Mr. Collins stated he believed he did the right thing by installing this type of antenna versus the horizontal antenna. He mentioned the forty three foot (43') high antenna is used for long distance communications to areas outside of the United States. Mr. Collins presented a petition which was signed by numerous neighbors having no concern about the installation of the antenna. He mentioned that he is a mechanical/electrical engineer by trade and the antenna is structurally and electrically installed to code and specifications. He further stated that if the variance for the forty three foot (43') vertical antenna was not granted he would have to install a horizontal antenna structure to continue with his Ham Radio operations. Mr. Kaplan asked the petitioner if the antenna will have any conflict with nearby communication systems. The petitioner noted that the antennas frequency will have no adverse effect on communications and he has been operating with another antenna for approximately eight (8) years will no complaints. Mr. Kaplan proceeded to ask the petitioner the designed wind loads of the new structure based on its minimal size. The petitioner believed it met a wind load of eighty (80) MPH, but would have to verify will all specifications. Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board. Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner about the existing antenna located on his roof and what it was used for. The petitioner stated the small, existing antenna structure on his roof is used for short range communications throughout the United States and the new antenna structure will be used I i for long distance communications extending outside of the United States borders and around the world. Mr. Walz asked the petitioner whether the new antenna was in use at this time because the antenna structure is completely installed. The petitioner stated the antenna is structurally installed but has no communication connections to the operating devices at this time. Mr. Walz stated based upon the design and aesthetics of the antenna, it was barely visible. Mr. Childress stated the narrowness of the installed antenna would be much more appealing than the design configuration of the horizontal assembly which would be installed if the variance for the vertical antenna was not granted. Mr. Childress mentioned he had no problems with the installation of the vertical antenna. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner how long the antenna structures have been up. The petitioner stated the roof mounted antenna has been in operation since approximately eight (8) years ago and the new forty three foot (43') antenna has been installed for approximately two (2) months. Mr. Schumm then asked the petitioner what the hardship was in installing the antenna over the maximum allowable height. The petitioner stated he enjoys Ham Radio operation and needs the antenna to continue with his hobby. He additionally indicated he does not want to pay thousands of more dollars for the horizontal antenna assembly. Mr. Oliveto asked the petitioner the advantage of Ham Radio communications over common day communications. The petitioner stated Ham Radio operation is technically more challenging and allows the operator to communicate through human voice interactions with distant countries. He additionally stated Ham Radio operations continue to allow communication during natural disasters and emergency crises. Mr. Oliveto then asked the petitioner if the Ham Radio communications had any effect on cell phone communications. The petitioner stated the Ham Radio frequencies will not affect cell phone connections or signals. Mr. Dohrer asked the petitioner if the forty three foot (43') height was absolutely necessary for the operation of the antenna. The petitioner stated the height was necessary to receive signals and establish strong connections when communicating. Mr. Dohrer stated the existing roof mounted antenna was more visually displeasing than the newly installed antenna and had no real objections to the installation of the forty three foot (43') vertical antenna. Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the public. I Mr. John Passarelli, a neighbor of the petitioner, living at 27 Essex Road stated he did not notice the new antenna structure and has approximately three (3) to four(4) windows facing directly onto the petitioners backyard where the antenna is installed. He continued to state he had no objections to the installation of the antenna. Mr. David Miller, Elk Grove Village Fire Chief, stated a concern regarding how the new antenna frequencies may affect any fire communications. The petitioner stated he had been operating the existing antenna for approximately eight (8) years and has had no complaints pertaining to disrupted communications. He additionally stated the FCC requires that the Ham Radio I I I operation can't influence any village, police, or fire communications. Mr. Miller suggested the Board make a condition stating the antenna shall not have any effect on village, police, or fire communications while in operation. A motion to grant a variation for the installation of a forty three foot (43') high antenna was made by Mr. Dohrer and seconded by Mr. Childress with the conditions of the antenna having no adverse effect on village, police, or fire communications. Upon voting (AYES —Oliveto, Kaplan, Walz, Schumm, and Carlson) the motion to grant the variance passed unanimously. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner, Mr. Collins, to contact the Village Clerk and attend the subsequent Village Board Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7.30 p.m. Respectf sub i ed, ared Polony Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Director of the Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission I I