My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-17-1978 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
12-17-1978 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 12:52:12 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 12:51:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 3 <br />Newman noted that formal approval would have Mr. Peters:ai's <br />name on it not the owner's. He stated that he had talked <br />ith NSP and they stated that they were more than happy <br />to handle any problems with interference. Northwestern <br />BELL stated that they too would handle any problems right <br />away. FCC stated that they would work with NSP and BELL <br />and also make sure that their equipment is operating properly. <br />Newman noted that when the antenna is not in use it would <br />come to approximately 29' or 30'. Also that none of the <br />neighbors should even be able to see it because of Mr. <br />Petersen's trees. They have structurally modified the <br />antenna to meet all requirements of the City of Orono. <br />If the tower should fall over it would only fall on Mr. <br />Petersen's property, not on the Peterson house nor on <br />anyone elses property. <br />Newman noted that Mr. Petersen sent out Mailgrams to the <br />Edstrom's and the Rokke's who were present at the last <br />meeting. The Mailgram advised the neighbors who to call <br />if they were having any interference problems. <br />Heunmerel suggested that the applicant get letters from <br />NSP, FCC, and BELL stating that they know of the proposed <br />antenna and that they are willing to correct any problems. <br />(PETERSEN CONT.\ <br />Q <br />In the past, Mrs. Edstrom stated that BELL told them that <br />)it wasn't their problem. NSP put two attachments on their <br />telephone which didn't help any at all. FCC took far too <br />long to respond to their last request. <br />David Quay stated that they live H mile away and that they <br />have television interference. He stated that if these <br />companies suggest that he put any correction equipment on <br />his property, why should he have to pay for this when its <br />Mr. Petersan's antenna which is causing the interference. <br />He wanted to know who was going to pay for the cost of <br />fixing his equipment? Is Mr. Petersgn ready to install <br />all correctional equipment on his and others equipment? <br />Newman stated that the FCC would make a personal inspection <br />of their property if desired. <br />Goetten suggested a six month trial period in which Mr. <br />Petersen could operate his antenna, then when the six <br />months were up the City would review the application. <br />Mabusth asked the attorney what was the maximum height <br />of the antenna? <br />Mr. Newman stated that when it was down the antenna would <br />be approximately 29' and could go up to 71', but that they <br />would make structural modification to only allow 65'. This <br />65' would include the special tower antennas at the top.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.