Planner Milini Simms gave a presentation that highlighted the following:
Purpose
Location
Zoning Requirement
Five criteria
Summary
Questions raised by the Board and addressed by Staff:
- Why is current tower being decommissioned?
Michelle Lamoureux, representative for Verizon Wireless, gave a presentation that highlighted the following:
- Replacing existing site located 350 feet to the west
- None of the parcels in the area would meet Oro Valley Code
- Original owner of site requested current tower be decommissioned
- Without tower, the result will be detrimental to Verizon service in surrounding area
- Difference in coverage area with tower and without tower
- 50 feet in height needed for coverage area; other carriers could also benefit
- Buildings in the area are too low for rooftop antennas to achieve the same objective
- The towers can withstand tremendous wind speeds
Questions raised by the Board and addressed by the applicant:
- What is Verizon's "Plan B" if this is not approved?
- Can smaller towers on rooftop achieve what this tower can do?
- Are the Oro Valley Code requirements universal?
- Rooftop towers will diminish service outside of ring area?
The applicant provided a handout on the drawings of the cell site.
Additional questions raised and addressed:
- If you expand the circumference of the area, how would that affect availability of additional rooftops? Impact the coverage in the same way?
- Stated police and fire services will be affected; are they aware of this?
- Stated that Oro Valley Code is more restrictive compared to other communities. Can you expand?
- Did the police & fire departments make any comments if the efficacy of their services will be negatively impacted if there was only rooftop servicing?
- The taller tower would generate income? Is it more expensive to have rooftop antennas in the area?
Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano stated the variance application was forwarded to the police department and at this time, they did not see a need to warrant the variance. Regarding the Type 1 application, process requires administrative review only, provided it meets the stealth criteria.
Chair Dankwerth opened the public hearing.
No speakers.
Chair Dankwerth closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schoeppach and seconded by Vice Chair Roach to deny OV7011936, a variance request to decrease the required setbacks for a proposed cell tower, based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met.
Member Schoeppach stated he wanted to make it clear they are not trying to be difficult. As evidenced from the questions raised by the Board, they are looking to figure out alternatives. From his perspective, the state law and code are extremely clear on the Board of Adjustment's responsibility to judge every proposal on whether it meets the five criteria; this proposal does not meet any of the criteria and would be impossible for him to vote to approve. This is the criteria, standard and process the Board is obligated to follow.
MOTION carried, 4-1 with Member Bohl opposed.
Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
Prepared by:
Jeanna Ancona
Senior Office Specialist
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the regular session Board of Adjustment meeting of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 26th day of September, 2017. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.