My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:31:00 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:30:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 <br />07 - - #2 245 Donald C rrier - Continued, ') <br />Smith questioned how the height issue should be decided. Van Zomeren reviewed the <br />ordinance. The old code of 65' maximum height was maintained when the ordinance was <br />recently redrafted. Van Zomeren said the consultant had recommended a maximum height <br />of 55'. Council maintained the 65' height requirement as stipulated in the original <br />ordinance. <br />Staff was unaware of any existing antennas that exceed the 65' height requirement. <br />Smith questioned where technology was going_ <br />Peg Currier indicated that 66' was required to allow for international communication. <br />Lindquist said he would support a 65' height and side setback of same distance. <br />Currier said that distance would be impossible with the lot layout as it would require <br />major tree removal and placement in the front yard to meet the lot line setback <br />requirement. <br />Van Zomeren indicated that 140' width would be needed and optimal location is where the <br />trees are positioned. <br />Lindquist questioned whether the 35' height when retracted results in a 35' high antenna. <br />A member of the public noted that most antenna towers fail at mid point and would not <br />require any more setback than that distance as it would be self collapsing. <br />Lindquist said he would need more information or would deny the application. <br />McMillan noted the support of the neighboring property owner but could become <br />problematic if that property should sell. <br />Stoddard noted the recent review of PCS antennas and new ordinance adoption <br />attempting to limit the number of variances required. He supported a 65' height. <br />John Bellows indicated he was assisting Mr. Currier with information on antennas. The <br />70' height needed is to allow the transmission over the height of the trees. Communication <br />would be lost at a lower height. Stoddard questioned what occurs when the trees grow <br />taller. Bellows said the trees are mature and are at their maximum height. Bellows <br />indicated that the front yard is the only place that would meet the setback and is not <br />allowed for such use. He noted that the code calls for reasonable allowance of such <br />• structures. Bellows said a least visible location is also preferred for aesthetical reasons. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.