Hanscom Park Neighborhood Association

For those interested, we have obtained the meeting notes about the proposed cell tower at 35th & Center.

> Special Use Permits
> REQUEST: Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a Broadcast tower in a GC District with a waiver of Section 55-406 Height to 150 feet 21. C8-12-129 Central States
> LOCATION: 3509 Center Street
> At the Planning Board meeting held on July 11, 2012, Sam Mandolfo, 2611 South 117 Street, appeared before the board to present the request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mandolfo requested a layover to allow more time to revisit with the department to discuss the requested height of 150′ as opposed to the recommended height of 110′ for the tower. He stated that the proposed location was considered because a 150′ antenna was located on the property for approximately 20 years before it recently fell down.
> In response to Mr. Kelley, Mr. Mandolfo confirmed that he has the authority from the applicant and cell tower provider and agrees to an extension of the “shot clock” as long as necessary.
> Sue Schlesinger, appeared before the board in opposition. Ms. Schlesinger stated that she owns 3522 and 3528 Center Street and is also representing Patricia A. Zieg, partner with Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP; Richard Huntzinger, tenant and the owner of Ritchie’s Restaurant; and the owner of Collector’s Choice which is adjacent to her property. She stated that there are three major concerns: 1) the safety impact, 2) physical impact; and 3) commercial impact. Ms. Schlesinger explained that the safety impact relates to the health risks of children in the area because there are two grade schools within walking distance and two residential day care centers. She questioned the height of the structure and the physical impact of the entire perimeter including, and not limited to, any type of physical impediment around the building (fences, safety fences, access, etc.) and what the negative impact might represent in a residential area. Ms. Schlesinger further stated that the residential activity is alive and well in the Field Club and Hanscom area so there is concern with regard to the commercial impact of a permanent structure.
> In response to Mr. Deeb, Ms. Schlesinger stated that the applicants have not met with the neighbors.
> She asked if the tower would be a benefit to the veterans and an opportunity for improved communication. Ms. Schlesinger questioned if there would be a better site in the area that is within the logistics required.
> Ian Swang, 3540 Center, appeared before the board in opposition. Mr. Swang stated that signatures were acquired and submitted from 70% of the property owners including the majority of the business owners within 300′ feet of the tower. He stated that over 90% of the property owners that were contacted were against the tower. Mr. Swang stated that Field Club Elementary School is one block away and the
> 600 children that attend the school do not have representation at this time. He stated that the previous Planning Board Meeting July 11, 2012 Page 11 tower was a radio tower that fell down in a storm and could have hit a house or traffic on Center Street.
>
> The proposed tower would be aesthetically out of place and would ruin the charm of the area. He stated that there are only small studies about the health issues and cell towers but overall there has not been enough studies to form a general scientific consensus. He stated there should be more studies to determine the health effects of cell phone tower radiation. The health risks from radiation are cumulative and higher levels of radiation leads to negative health effects including cancer. Mr. Swang stated that he and his wife moved into the neighborhood to raise a family but he does not want to raise his children in an industrial zone.
> In response to Mr. Neary, Mr. Swang answered that he would be willing to meet with the applicant.
> David Fanslau, Current Planning Manager, Planning Department, stated that the original recommendation report was to approve the Special Use Permit subject to seven items on the recommendation report but the department would be in favor of a layover.
> Mr. Deeb suggested that the applicant spend time with the neighbors and address all concerns and answer questions before the board votes on the request.
> Ms. Nubel asked Mr. Mandolfo if other locations have been researched and considered and is the tower specifically for the benefit of the VA. Mr. Mandolfo stated that he worked with the VA for two years to get a roof top location but the VA Hospital is in the process of building a new hospital with a green roof therefore there is no opportunity for any antennas or towers. He stated that a tower is presently located on the Center Mall but alternative locations to the west are not acceptable because it is all downhill. Mr.
> Mandolfo stated that because of the demands for data and service, within the metropolitan areas, AT&T is in the process of upgrading the network capacity and the original intent was to drive better service within the hospital. He stated that he is willing to meet with the neighbors at any time and with regard to safety, a new cell tower was recently installed between Monroe Middle School and Benson High School.
> In response to Mr. Kelley, Mr. Mandolfo answered that the Douglas County Hospital has an existing tower and there is no additional ground space available.
> Mr. Swang asked the board to vote and not consider a layover.
> Ms. Schlesinger commented that the presence of the AT&T towers on properties that are already well suited for the sites should be revisited.
> In response to Mr. Neary, Mr. Thelen stated that if the case is laid over, he will discuss the federal limits on the ability to deny a cell tower with the board.
> Mr. Neary moved for a layover until the September 5, 2012 meeting. Ms. Nubel seconded the motion which carried 5-1 with Mr. Hoich dissenting.