Chairman Hickey swore in the applicant, Chad Blunt.
Mr. Blunt gave the following presentation:
- Site Location
- Antenna Type & Size
- Variance of 2 ft. in height
Member Parisi asked if the antenna could be located somewhere else in that area. Mr. Blunt said issues of frequency and interference become affected if moved to another location. Mr. Blunt stated that the location also allows for the storage of radio equipment.
Member Fields asked if they would be requesting more poles. Mr. Blunt said if they do not, other carriers will. Mr. Blunt said we have a license with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and with that license comes the responsibility to provide service to the population. The industry has come out with a new projection that cell phone usage in the U.S. will be increasing over 40%. It is a demand that is being placed on all the carriers, and they are trying to meet that responsibility.
Chairman Hickey asked if the canister was a double stack. Mr. Blunt said yes, and they are trying not to build a second pole. Chairman Hickey asked if it was strictly cellular. Mr. Blunt said Wi-Fi is included. Chairman Hickey asked if they could lower their wires. Mr. Blunt said TEP will not allow it; they are accommodating us by letting us locate on their tower.
Karen Berchtold, OV Senior Planner, presented the following:
- Location Map
- Zoning Map
- Aerial Map
- OVZCR: Tier II Minor Facilities
- Variance Request
- Public Input
- BOA Findings
Member Christopher asked if any other telecommunication systems received a variance. Ms. Berchtold said she was aware of two requests reviewed by the Town and both were denied. Ms. Berchtold said one of the requests was related to height.
Member Fields asked what the process is for a major communication facility. Ms. Berchtold said the applicant is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Town staff would prepare plans and a report, and bring the request to the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&ZC). Neighborhood meetings would also be involved, and then the P&ZC would provide a recommendation to Town Council. In addition, the applicant must go through the same process as in this case; they prepare a site plan to go the Development Review Board (DRB), and then to Town Council for approval.
Vice Chair Hoy-Johnson asked what the neighborhood reaction was. Ms. Berchtold said she was not the planner hosting those meetings, but the comments provided in the packet pertained to the equipment cabinet and landscape plan.
Chairman Hickey asked what the Town’s obligation would be if it were to permit the use of this pole as a tower and subsequently have to remove the tower. Tobin Rosen, OV Town Attorney, said the chance this may occur is slim due to the recent widening of La Canada. If the utility pole would have to be removed, the communications company would have to make their own arrangements, and if the HOA wanted to have underground utilities they would have to bear that expense.
Chairman Hickey opened the public hearing.
Chairman Hickey swore in Charles Black, OV resident.
Mr. Black said there were concerns with the project that he brought to the engineer’s attention, as far as code. Based on what he read in the code, for every foot of height of that building there is supposed to be a setback underneath power lines by two feet. Mr. Black said the edge of the building is almost under the power lines. He said it might affect the drainage area, and asked who would maintain the foliage around the site. Mr. Black said the taxpayers just beautified this area and now there is going to be a 15’ x 22’ building. Mr. Black voiced his concern about the noise level in keeping the equipment cool. He said there are 6 antennas within 4 miles of his home and is concerned with how many more will go up. We need to look at these variances or Oro Valley will look like downtown Tucson. Mr. Black said it all comes down to money; the HOA will be making $12,000 a year on this project. Mr. Black said if that antenna had been there before he would never have moved to Oro Valley.
Chairman Hickey closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blunt said after all the HOA and public meetings there have been no other oppositions except for Mr. Black. As for the code violation, he said they are not putting a building out there; it is a patio with an 8 ft. wall. Mr. Blunt said they are not providing cable service, they are providing wireless service. Mr. Blunt said they agreed to push the equipment area an additional 10 ft. and are now 40 ft. from Mr. Black’s wall. There is no generator, just heat exchangers. Mr. Blunt said the HOA currently maintains the landscape and will continue to do so. Mr. Blunt said we can not cut 2 feet off the canister. Sound has never been an issue at a cell site.
Vice Chair Hoy-Johnson asked what the alternative plan is if this is not approved. Mr. Blunt said AT&T would have to make that call.
Chairman Hickey asked where parking would take place for maintenance at the site. Mr. Blunt said there is a parking spot provided and most of the maintenance is conducted at odd hours. Chairman Hickey asked about power failure. Mr. Blunt said there would be an 8 hour battery back up.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi and seconded by Member Christopher to approve OV10-10-07, AT&T Mobility's request for a variance.
Member Fields said he wondering why BOA is dealing with this because AT&T is neither the owner of the property nor of the pole. He said he is not in support of this request.
Mr. Rosen said it is AT&T’s request to put their facilities on Tucson Electric Power’s pole. Chapter 25 of the OVZCR said AT&T could come in under the major communication facility process. AT&T has chosen to come before this board seeking a variance and would have to meet the requirements for variance from the code.
Member Christopher said this is a strange request and this is an issue we need to take seriously because it will set a precedent in the future. The residents of the Town are going to continually demand communication resources.
Member Fields said it does not meet A, C or E of our Board of Adjustment review criteria.
Vice Chair Hoy-Johnson said we have to be aware of the times; and if this is going to be an issue, we need to look at it clearly now, bite the bullet, and move forward.
Member Fields said he feels it is up to the Town Council and not the BOA.
Member Parisi said they are obligated to provide service. This is a utility easement and its joint use has always been there. The problem with the neighbor has nothing to do with the two feet of height.
Member Christopher said the question becomes, what happens if we deny this. The facility has to be built and appears the applicant has gone above and beyond to minimize impact of the required facility.
Chairman Hickey said Town Council is a better place for this very broad issue. He stated he does not think these items have been met and it is not in the Board's purview.
Vice Chair Hoy-Johnson asked if Council can overrule BOA’s decision. Chairman Hickey answered that the applicant can take the alternate path.
David Williams, OV Interim Planning Division Manager, said if this goes through a Tier 3 process, it will still require a variance and approval from BOA as well as the Development Review Board, Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council.
Member Parisi said there are cell utilities all over town that do not require a height variance. This is a very unique situation because Copper Creek is in a unique location. Chairman Hickey said double stacks are coming and places that do not have the need for the extended height could come before us.
Member Christopher said by the time we get to that point, members of the public will approach the Town Council and say this is an issue.
Chairman Hickey requested a roll call vote.
MOTION carried, 3-2 with Chairman Hickey and Member Fields opposed.