Laserfiche WebLink
)N <br />>rive So. <br />3. ii <br />Lf <br />Vy?1 <br />A:.-- ..\ig:f. <br />■ i <br />ETERSEN <br />chard Rd. <br />USE PERMI <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 <br />PAGE 4 <br />The general consensus of the public was:TIMOTHY J. PETERSEN <br />Orono Orchard Rd.1 <br />neighbors present were receiving interferrence CONDITIONAL USE PERM <br />with reception on their televisions, telephones, radios, & VARIANCE <br />stereos, etc. However, during further discussion, (#500) Cont <br />It was decided that these complaints should be directed <br />to the F.C.C. <br />2. They were all opposed to the height of the structure <br />and the general appearance of an antenna stating they <br />felt it was unsuitable for a residential area. <br />3. They were concerned about inspection and maintenance <br />of the antenna. Questioned what would happen to the <br />antenna if Mr. Petersen were to move. Mr. Petersen did <br />state that he had an agreement with the owner of the <br />property to restore everything to its original condition <br />prior to his occupancy. <br />4. They were concerned regarding the safety factor <br />especially in regards to neighborhood children or in <br />the case of structural failure. Earlier this sxammer <br />a top portion of the tower was knocked down by high <br />winds. <br />5. Residents questioned whether the guide wires <br />would be included as part of the antenna structure <br />in determining the setback. <br />6. Some of the neighboring property owners felt <br />the antenna(s) would decrease their property values. <br />7. When asked by the Planning Commission what size <br />or number of antenna would be acceptable to them, <br />if any, the response was only one tower with a <br />maximum height of 35'-50' completely treed and <br />landscaped. <br />Wilson moved to recommend denial of the conditional <br />use permit and variance application for two antennas <br />(one 85' and one 120') based on site review, resident's <br />objections and the following findings of fact: <br />1. Adverse visual impact. <br />2. Safety factor: a) possible collapse & <br />b) attractive nuisance <br />ym <br />... <br />■:-iV