Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

They don't respond. The second

meeting to order. Roll call. Peter Kemp here. Logan Zuber here. Dave Lemer here. Chris Lamb here. We have a quorum. Did you have an opportunity to review the previous minutes? Yep. Any changes or modifications? Nope. Take a motion to approve. Move to approve minutes as presented. Second. All in favor? I I approved.

Any changes to our agenda tonight? Okay. If you have phones or pages, please shut them off. We have no old business. New business. We'll open the public hearing for BZA standard. BZA standard variance 2025- 009 begin with the staff report. Thank you. Uh Jim Keter, city planner for Auburn. Uh this application uh was filed by Shawn Miller uh who's requesting a development standard variance uh to the lot to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage allowed for uh his property which is zoned R2. The property is located at 5528 Bear Creek Pass. Uh the variance requires a public hearing was advertised in the star on August 6th and there were four adjacent property under set notice on July 30th. Uh the location map of the property highlighted um it is in the Bear Creek subdivision of Bear Creek Pass. The area directly uh to the west behind the home is actually a common area tract uh as part of the subdivision. uh the proposed improvements for the property um show uh again the the home the uh to the west is the north part of the screen. So the pool would go to the west of the home and the rear yard and then there'd be a patio area around the home. Existing yard area would remain on the north side of the rear yard and of course the front yard uh is unchanged. I mentioned the property is owned R2 which is medium density residential. a couple of photographs of the property. Uh the first one is standing at the north property line looking south at the backyard area and then the next

photograph is from the south looking to the north. So the pool would go within that grass area. This is looking to the rear of the property, the fence along the rear property line and then the common area for the subdivision u west of the west of the fence. And just one other photographs just more of an aerial um just giving you the image of the property. It's entirely fetched in uh rear yard area. Staff did not receive any public input from the notices or the legal notice. Uh so the applicant they're requesting to install the pool. It's 28T by 14T. It's in ground. That'll be a concrete deck around the pool. And with the pool, the deck, the lot coverage for the property, which includes the home, the driveway, any hard surface of the property is part of uh an impervious surface. And uh the code allows a maximum of 40% of the lot to be covered. With the the pool in the deck, he would be up to 57% uh of the lot. And that's that's what triggered the uh the variance request. the uh existing lot coverage. It looks like it's calculated out about 43% right now. I don't know if there was a sidewalk added or something, but that's that's the current coverage of the property. There's also an existing 20ft easement along the west property line, the rear of this property. It is a utility and drainage easement. Um and the deck of the pool would encroach into that area. Um but he has uh the property owner has sought an encroachment agreement with our board of works. So if the pool is allowed to go in, he is allowed to encroach the easement with that agreement he has with the city. Uh the Bear Creek Community Association did review the request um since it's in the homeowners association there and they did approve uh the approvements. Property owner did submit uh findings

for your consideration. Uh so with staff recommendation u the additional lot coverage is within the rear yard area of the property uh being fenced in. It's probably not going to be so noticeable that he's increased over the 40%. Nothing changes in the front yard. Still quite a bit of yard area in the front. So the increased um imperous surface is not going to be visible to to uh to most properties and property owners in the area. Uh so uh we do feel that this is a reasonable request and we do recommend that this the board accept the staff proposed findings uh that we submitted to you and approve the variance as requested.

Any questions, comments? No. Is the fence already in the utility easement? The fence is within the utility easement. Yes. I saw the picture. Yeah. Question came to mind. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Would the applicant please come forward, introduce yourself, spell your last name, and add any other information you feel pertinent?

Uh, Sean Miller. Miller. M I L E R. Sean's the messed up one. It's S E. I spell it the right way. Um, as far as anything to really add, I know that there was some concerns with drainage running off of that much imperable surface. Um, as you guys can see in the drawing, um, we are planning on putting along the fence line that gray area. So, every part that goes that's already not my house will have a 1 foot6 rock bed to kind of absorb some of that water prior to it going onto somebody else's property. So, I mean, the drainage issue, all my gutters are buried. So all of the natural runoff from the roof, anything else goes clear out back to the drainage ditch that has been there in that common area for years.

Okay. Any questions? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would just speak for against the project? If so, please come forward. Okay. It will now close a public hearing for this project. Board discussion. Looks good. Looks good to me. Sounds reasonable. Right there. Right. Mr. Bosworth, maybe we have the findings of fact. Yes. The findings of fact for the standard variance stand. 09. One, the included variance will not be val will not adopt that finding there.

Yes. Yes. Two, the use and value of the area the property included will not be effective in a substantially adverse manner. Will not you wish to adopt that staff finding? Yes. Yes. Three, the strict application of terms will not result in practical difficulties to the problem. Will you wish to adopt the staff? Yes. I entertain a motion. I move to approve BZA standards 2025009 as presented. Second. All in favor? Uh, good luck.

We'll now open the public hearing for BCA standard variance 2025-00002. probably to go back to you.

Okay. Thank you. This request uh filed by Michael Saras. He's representing Vertical Bridge uh on behalf of the property owner which is Indiana and Michigan Electric Company. Uh he is requesting a special exception uh to allow the installation of a telecommunications tower upon property that's located at 402 Center Street. This special exception does require a public hearing was advertised in the STAR on August 6th and there were 11 adjacent property owners sent notice on July 30th. Uh the location of the property uh is the substation uh on Center Street. It's the uh Indiana m Indiana electric substation. The city substation is further to the north. The uh property itself is zoned I1 which is line industrial. Few photographs of the property. This photograph on the top was uh taken from the north property line of the substation. We're looking south at where the tower site would be. The tower would be basically in the middle of that Fencston area uh the middle of the uh Fenston substation property. Next photograph is looking from the east property line west towards center street at the tower site. And then this is from the south property line uh looking north at the uh where the tower site would be. And then this is from Center Street uh looking east. Uh the tower would be on the far side of the substation and there is an aerial photograph just giving you again a inclination of of what the area is. Um at the time that we submitted the staff report for your consideration, we had not received any public input. Today we did receive uh two uh statements uh

objections um to the uh proposed special exception. I have included those in the uh in the uh your folders for you to review. Um one of them was via email. Well, they're both via email. One of them is an actual letter. The other one is just the uh the content of the email. We also, as far as notification, put out our standard public notice sign. We do those typically for planning commission actions, but if there is a special exception request, which is a a use request, uh we do place them out. So, we put that out along Center Street back on July 31st. The again with the zoning of the property, the I1 zoning, a telecommunication tower is listed as a special exception use. Um, special exception use, the best way to describe it is it's a use that has been deemed appropriate for that zoning district um with with conditions. And typically that special exception will have conditions attached to it as this one does. Um and then there is the uh uh provision for a special exception where yes it's a permitted use within the district but it is sightsp specific. So in theory it might be appropriate for one location of I1 property but maybe not another location. So the real determination you're making is is this location appropriate for that for that use? Generally yes, but is this exact location appropriate? So that's really what the special exception is. You don't see those a lot. Not very common that those uh get requested. So the uh the tower itself, it is monopole design. That is required to be a monopole design. The height of the tower will be between 180 and 185 foot. Uh, one of the one of those standards or

conditions for a telecomation towers, it has to be under 200 ft. The tower I believe is being utilized by Verizon. One of the first things I do when we have this kind of request is contact the airport authority. They of course always want to know of any location for a tower. uh they did not express any concern on the location of the height of the tower. Uh the tower is going to be placed upon a leashed area. So it's a 60 foot by 60 foot area. Uh again um about in the middle of that fenced fenced area towards the rear of the property. So it'll be behind the substation property. It then would be accessed uh by the existing driveway that gets uh vehicles back to the substation property. The tower uh will be enclosed with a chain link fence and a gate matching similar to what the substation uh gating is. Other conditions of a telecommunication tower is setbacks. Has to meet specific setbacks uh from the uh property lines and that setback is based on the height of the tower. So there's a front yard setback which would be from center, the rear yard setback which is the east property line, the two side setbacks, the north and south property lines. There's also a setback from the boundary of any residential zoning district. the tower exceeds uh all of those setback requirements. So with that, the um conditions provisions of a telecommunication tower have been met for this property. The property itself again being next to the substation, there are of course uh high transmission power lines. There's

towers for those lines. there towers supporting uh different feeder lines etc going to and from the substation. The uh the one tower the tallest tower is just to the north of where this proposed telecommunication tower will be and it actually has a height of 165 ft. So the tower, so this is the the probably standing about uh close to where the the new tower would be, but that is the uh the tallest pole on the property is 165 ft. Some of the other poles would drop down in height from that. Um 125 ft is pretty standard height of the transmission towers and the poles that are out there. One of the uh requirements for a uh telecommunication tower is the the perimeter of the tower itself, the fenced in area of the tower is required to have evergreen screening around it. Um so they are asking to wave that requirement. again when they're looking at the viability of having that around just their tower site when we have the whole substations both INM's and uh Auburn Electrics doesn't have any screening for that for the substation so they didn't feel it was appropriate or necessary to have the screening just around the perimeter of the uh fencing of the tower so they are asking that uh to to be waved. So as we looked at this particular request, uh we look at uh of course the zoning of the property. It's a special exception use. So we we know that it's appropriate in I1. We start looking at the specific site. And when I looked at the site, I looked at it as we have substations there. We have two substations. We have all the overhead transmission lines and towers and poles around the property. Some of them almost as tall as what they're asking to do. I

felt it was a an appropriate location. the setbacks are exceeded. So if something should happen to the pole, in this instance, the pole falls down, it won't fall on anybody else's property because if it's the setback is going to land on the INM property. Uh so I think the distance from the homes um does make a difference for this location. The closest home that I measured uh was old the one on Old Brick Road. So, the home just to the uh to the south, a little bit to the southeast at 702 Old Brick Road. Tower will be 300 foot from from that residence. Um, couple of other things that I look at as the other towers are in the city and they're, you know, where they're at, what their heights are. If you recall, the one on Touring Drive came to this board not too long ago, probably 24. That particular tower is 295 foot tall. And that particular tower is uh only 275 foot from the from the closest dwelling units. So that's actually a much closer not much, but it's a closer scenario than what we're looking at here. The other tower, we have another tower up on 36A by the early learning center. Um that tower is this about the same height, 185 foot. So if you can imagine that tower, this one is is the same height. there's no homes located close to that particular tower. So, you know, we're we're as staff we're analyzing that. We're analyzing the location, what's already there. So, we do we do believe it's an appropriate use for the property. Um, again, being being within the industrial zoned area where the substation is at, complies with all the setbacks from adjacent properties. We don't feel it's necessary to do the screening. Again, looking at, you know, the existing substations don't have any screening. um it doesn't seem to be a necessary component of the project for a for this cell tower. Uh so staff does recommend

the board accept we have submitted proposed findings for your consideration and wave the screening requirement um and approve the BGA uh request subject to one condition. They just secured their FAA approval for the tower site which I know they are in the process of doing. Uh so with that um again the two object objection letters should be in your uh folders there for you to for you for you to view and we'll close staff comments. Did you read Mr. Fincham's objection letter?

I did. um how is how are we to judge the scientific principles he stated in that letter versus you know the there's already a whole bunch of electric going through there and high tension lines and does it hold credence I yeah that's not really something that I can respond to is the health concerns of a proposed facility this versus uh health concerns of a electrical substation and the overhead transmission lines I think we all know the stories we've all heard and read about you know concerns but those are there existing so I don't know if this is compounding that or it's just not something that I

well there's already a lot of it going on in that area already you had to pick a place [Music] comments questions do are some of our other towers how close are they to resident residential areas. The tower on Touring Drive is closer to a residential area. Um the Jerry Junction apartment community is there.

Um the other tower that I mentioned on 36A is that's not close to a residential home. Of course, our water towers have telecommunication fac, you know, facilities on top of them, and those are those are much closer to residential areas, but it's not a specific tower. You know, it's a their their equipment is placed on top of our water tower. Those are the only examples in town that I know of. Would this be do you think the closest one to residential? No, the one houses that's up behind Walmart. Oh, yeah. South of Walmart is that that one's closer to residential. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.

Would the applicant please come forward, introduce yourself, spell your last name, and add any other pertinent information you deem necessary? Oh, name and address. Excuse me. Yes. Hi, I'm Michael Sus on behalf of Vertical Ridge and Verizon Wireless. My last name is spelled S A R R I S. My address is 11208 Lake Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44102. Oh yes. Um

wanted to thank you for that um great summary of our proposal. It makes my uh makes my job a little easier. Um yeah, Verizon and Vertical Bridge are trying to address a network deficiency in the area and bring better service to to Auburn, Indiana. Um I don't think it's any secret to anyone that the use of uh you know wireless communication devices has just exploded um in the last few years, last 10 years. Um I could throw some data out to you. Um in 2017, an average smartphone um used about seven gigabytes per data per month. At the end of 2025, they're projecting about 53 gigabytes per data per phone. So that's a huge that's almost 650% increase in just uh about eight years. Um 63% of households are wireless which you'd think or exclusively wireless which you think would be more. Um so the reliance uh you know on the wireless network for E911 and uh those types of services is is greater and also there'll be about 35 billion um wireless devices by the end of 2025. So that's some that's some data there. So, for this tower, like I'm not sure your familiarity with other towers and stuff, but like I know where I grew up at, there was an older cell tower that got put up. I don't know its use anymore. Is there a point in time when this tower would be obsolete in the near future?

Obsolete meaning

a new form of communicate, new types of tower, like these 5G towers are newer versus the older towers that they don't put up anymore. Well, the the technology I mean 5G is you know thrown out. I mean the the tech the tower technology is still pretty much the same. You know monopole self-support guy tower it's just the types of antenna excuse me antennas and radio heads that are put up on our on the tower. Um I can't I don't have a crystal ball. I you know um there's in in the lease all our lease agreements there's a decommissioning part of that as far as like if the tower is no longer you know being uh being used um the tower will be taken down. Um, but Verizon isn't going anywhere. Um, Vertical Bridge is is we'll probably plan to get another carrier, AT&T, T-Mobile, on that tower once that tower is there because like I said, the demand is just, you know, off the shores. So, there's always that need.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the project? If so, please come forward. your name, address.

Good evening, members of the board. Um, my name is Jim Fincham. I live at 271 North Mlen Street in Auburn. I'm here today to respectfully urge you to deny the special exemption request for constructing a 185 foot tower at 402 Center Street. I know I previously submitted a letter about the health concerns for this tower, but this exemption should be denied because it would violate both the intent and the standards of Auburn's current zoning code, which exists uh to preserve the safety, character, and overall development of our community. First, let's talk about the intent. The zoning was put in place to guide the growth of our city in a way that respects existing neighborhoods. The area surrounding uh 402 Center Street is not industrial. It's primarily residential with small pockets of uh smallcale commercial. A 105 uh 85 foot structure which would be over 17 stories tall dramatically exceeds the scale and the character of this area. It would dominate the skyline, impact sight lines and reduce property values for nearly uh for the near home uh nearby homeowners. This is not what this zoning district was meant to accommodate. Secondly, for standards, the applicant should show that the tower would not negatively impact the public's health, safety, and welfare. And I don't believe it can. A structure of this heights poses potential risk, fall zones, and lighting hazards or lightning hazards, which could cause serious issues being built right next to a power station. Let me talk I'm going to go off script here and look more at the fall zones versus where it's located to the power stations. A definition of a fall zone would be fall zones are areas surrounding a cell tower where um debris such as ice or parts of

the tower could potentially fall. These zones are crucially crucial for safety especially in residential areas. For a monopole type, which this is for cell towers, the typical fall zone radius should be 1.5 times the height of the tower. If you think about the location of the substation, basically directly below that, and the potential of power outages based on falling debris, I think this is an inappropriate um place for this this tower to go. The zoning code actually is not a suggestion. It's the law. And while code allows for special uses in limited cases, this should not become a loophole to allow incompatible and disruptive developments. Granting this exception would not only undermine the zoning code, it would also set a dangerous precedent for future request. How are you deny to deny a future one um trying to do the same thing in a basically residential area? the application the applicant should bear the b burden of proving that this is compatible with the surrounding area and uses. Um in my view though they have not met this burden. I would respectfully then ask you to uphold the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the integrity of our community. Please vote no on the special use exemption. And I want to thank you for your time and your service to the city. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak to this project, please state your name and address.

Spell your last name.

Kevin Webb, 113 Matthew Cove Webb with two B's webb. Um I'm on the board at the Auburn Lions Church is at 805 Old Brick Road and familiar with the issues of towers and wires and things like that that's in that area. Um, I'm looking at the possibility if if it was located at the edge of town towards the south, if you still had the same range and it wouldn't be affect the substation or residential people if it was located. I don't know what the range on the tower is. If you'd still have good coverage if you're right on the edge of town going to the south, there's industrial property out there. it would be a better location and you would be uh in now you're going to be imposing this tower on the residents that are already there and I don't think the residents and the people realize how tall that tower is going to be until it gets installed and you'll they'll go like oh my you know what they do here the electric lines on our church property were there bec are there and the new towers because it was an existing line and it had to be upgraded So every you know kind of fought with them but still had to have that done. So they they came in they come in from the south towards the substation and they shoot off to Butler too. So but on the other side of Brook Road it's mostly residential and the substation and I just think there's too much going on there to locate that tower in that spot. So thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? If you would permit, I'd like to add one more thing about fall zones. The f Jim Finchum again. Um fall zones are the reason why the windmills are not in Decal County right now. The ice coming off of it. That's why the windmills So they're it it's it's a real thing and that's why the windmills didn't go through in the county. So just wanted to add that to the to the discussion. Thank you. Ma'am, can you state your name, address by your last name?

I'm Lori Shannyfeld. My last name is S H A N Y F E L T and I do live at the property on 702 Old Brick Road. Um, I want to thank Mr. Webb and Mr. Finchum. Um, I'm really I don't have any information prepared as I just learned of this this morning. So, um, I wasn't one, unfortunately, of the 11 that were notified, and it does sound like my home is the closest one, and I've received no notification. So, I was really blindsided by this. Um, my husband and I bought this property in 2011. It was an eyesore. The home was about ready to be tore down. My husband and I thought it was a unique property. It had 2 and a/4 acres and honestly it was be beyond anybody's wildest dreams what a mess this place was. Um it took us a year and a half even before we could even move in it and it still wasn't done. My husband did probably 95% of this work on our own and we have worked and worked and worked and actually we were chosen to be in the garden walk twice because of the improvements that we've made. I was the president of the garden club for a few years and we're really proud of what we've done. Unfortunately, a few years after we lived there, we learned of a easement variance that was there in the 50s. So, AE comes along and takes nine of our trees and puts up these horrific looking poles pretty much in my front yard. And there really wasn't anything we could do about it. Although I don't like it. I love my home and we do take pride in it. Um, and like I we receive compliments constantly on what we have done with this place. It's unfortunate

the substation has doubled since we've been there and these poles are there. Um, we've tried to plant some trees after they took my nine trees out, but I can't plant enough trees to cover up this pole. When I do my dishes and look out at my yard, I'm gonna see this ugly monstrosity and there's nothing I'm gonna be able to do about it. My husband and I have worked very hard. My husband has heart problems. We can't we can't start over and do this again. And we've if you've seen this property in the picture I submitted, you can see what I'm talking about what we've done. And I just don't think it's fair that they can just come along. I feel with the polls, our property has probably been devalued, but with this thing going up, nobody's going to want this place. It doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have put in it, and we have, nobody's going to want it. And I just I don't think it's fair. And I'm sure that there's a lot of health risk involved. I just haven't had the time. Like I said, I just was notified about this through another neighbor this morning, but I I just I urge you to vote no. Um said, "We've worked really hard on this place to to fix this neighborhood up and and this house was a horrible and and we've worked so hard and I just don't want to see I don't want to see it devalued anymore." And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the project?

Please state your name, give your address, and spell your last name.

Hi, uh my name is David Parker. Um I live at uh 121 Cord Place. Uh it's my mom's property, actually. Uh but uh uh we we want to object to it, too. And pretty much what they've said, uh uh they've hit almost all the bases. There's only one other uh spot on it that I found that I hadn't heard anybody uh say. I got here late to the meeting though as well. So uh uh but I guess I'm just here for the community and uh uh again touching base with everything what they had said about the health, the the fall risk, all that stuff. The uh property value, that's a big uh uh thing for everyone. I went around and talked to my neighbors. Uh I went around a few of the blocks trying to speak with people where their property were touching the same uh where this uh tower is going in or one is proposed to go in at. And uh none of them, not one person had heard about this. Not one person had any idea that this was going on. Whether they got the letter and didn't see it, I have no clue. But uh I know there's a lot of people that was uh uh not interested in having it put up. Uh, I got a petition started. I got some names and stuff on this I want to leave here uh with you guys. And uh the only uh other thing that I didn't hear about again was the uh other proposals for the sites like uh if they had uh uh looked into uh using existing uh like towers, the water towers or other places that they have where they can uh use that equipment to uh put the antennas on. Uh that was just the only like I said the only thing I hadn't heard that was talked about. Uh but other than that uh I guess that's uh all I have. Thank you.

Just as a point of edification uh when letters are sent out notifying people as to the adjacent properties. We don't send letters to everybody within a mile or anything be impractical. So, is there anyone else that wishes to speak to the project? Close the public hearing. Did we want to potentially bring the petitioner up to respond to any of the potential comments? Would you care to respond to anything?

Jim, do you know where the 165 ft tower or pole is compared to the 185 ft? is just to the norththeast of the INF substation. So it's it's it's east. Okay. Just to the north and east. Yeah. Just Yeah. Kind of the quarter of that fenced in area of the substation is where it's okay. Oh yeah. There. Yeah. That's a big one. Comparison. 5G has a shorter range, right? You have to have more towers.

Yeah. the higher fre the higher frequencies are not as as is not as um into the distance as the lower frequencies. Yeah, I did want to say we we did submit a fall zone letter with the application and monopoles and towers are designed to fall upon themselves. They buckle in the middle. So that was submitted um with the application. You should have a copy of that. Um yeah, we do uh and Vertical Bridge and uh Verizon Wireless um take great efforts to ensure that we comply with the federal standards um put forth by the FCC, FAA, EPA, and FDA as well as the the state standards in Indiana.

Okay. Well, anything else?

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. I will now close the public hearing board discussion. So the issue that I keep took a bunch of notes here as people were talking. The issue that I keep hearing is that this one is a lot closer to resident. It's surrounded by residential. We've got the park there and they have a substation. And I understand that the substation is an eyesore, but also that substation she had said doubled in size in the last 10 or so years. And like they couldn't really fight that. I imagine those easements were already there.

Talking about the church, too, and they couldn't really fight that. But to what Jim was saying, I mean, you're going to set the precedent of putting up a tower kind of anywhere that's zoned industrial and especially this close to residential because if we've done it this close to residential, we could do it, you know, again and again. And I mean, they don't have any say on the pre-existing electric lines um and the property value thing. I mean, you can I would definitely imagine there's something, you know, there. I mean, the power line she was talking about, and whether or not you believe in the health risks about it, a lot of people do. And I I have a house over there that I'm remodeling, and I know it will affect it somehow. It may mean sitting on the market longer. It may mean a slightly less price drop. I don't know. Uh, but I know there are people who don't who strongly believe in the health effects of it. Um, what else? Oh, that I add here is that so what the tallest one there is 165 foot so this be about 20 foot taller so

right it's a lot larger in general and I think people are getting this this while the substation is there and that's the use of it and while it might not look like an eyesore because of the use there I mean you're now talking about an aerial use a lot larger and when you're coming up from center kind of 29 there. You're coming uphill. So, you're going to see that thing from further away than I think we think. And I think when that thing gets put up, is that objectionable? You see a tower? What's that? Is that objectionable to see a tower? Objection. Objectionable. Like, don't

like you drive up center street and you see a tower up there. Is that objectionable? What I'm saying is that it will change the skyline of that area is my point by 20 foot. Well, if you're putting up a big tower there, right? But there's already 16, right? I mean, if I'm driving up the hill, I don't know what 185 foot looks like. My point is I'm you're driving up a hill, so you will see it further than I think that we're, you know, that we might think you're going to see it all over.

It sounds like a bad precedent to set. It's It's a lot closer to homes. I mean, I guess I haven't counted the houses around there, but I got to imagine there's we at the substation. You got McIntyre, McIntyre Drive, Cord Place, all along uh around uh was it El Street, Old Brick Road, 15th Street, South Division, South Baxter, South Center. Those are all people who are going to see that in their area. Yeah, I looked at Google Earth this morning um on that property and it's a big space. It's it's a wide open space. There's already the the electrical plant there. It just seems like if if you have to put it somewhere, it makes sense that you put it with all that other electronic stuff.

My opinion, I guess it sounds like a bad precedent that just becau just because it already sucks, let's make it suck more. That's what I was going to say. I mean, it's gotten worse over the years and are we going to make it worse again? Yeah, because it's already doubled in size and I'm not sure when uh Kevin had said when they came in and increased the utility poles because that even was already there. They couldn't fight that. You're never going to stop that. But this, we're talking about something new to add on to what's already doubled in size. It just sounds like making something that's already gotten worse and making it let's just add on to it even more.

The spacing of the towers I mean can it be outside the city limits someplace and still do the job? That's right to decide though. I don't know the answer to that, but I know you need a lot of towers for 5G and 6G is going to have a higher frequency, so you'll need more towers closer to the more closely spaced. Um, if this isn't an appropriate piece of property, what is? The closest house is over 300 feet away. That's not that far, though. Pardon? That's not that far.

That's my question. Can you have a have all the towers outside of city, you know, nowhere close to houses and do the job. Where is that? In Auburn.

Well, it says like the special basically our job special exemption shall be approved only upon the determination. There's four or five different light items here, but the prop it's their findings of facts. Essentially, the special exemption is in harmony with all adjacent land uses. I wouldn't really call that in harmony with the residential that surrounds it. And then will not the special exemption will not alter the character of the district. I mean, you're putting up 180 foot pole, 85 foot pole straight up in the air around that. And yes, you can make the argument that it's already gotten 160, but you're just adding more fluff to it.

I don't think I don't think it fits.

So, the the primary consideration, public endangerment, the health causes are inconclusive. Compatibility industrial zoning, but compatibility with the surrounding area. Yes, the surrounding neighborhoods are residential, but this is a going into where substations currently are. So, compatibility with substations for infrastructure is is there as far as compatibility goes. Minimal impact neighbors 20 ft vertical rise over what's existing there is to a degree negligible, but still impactful to the neighbors because of the use of telecommunications. The I've done some reading recently on electrical health impacts from an electrical substation comparative to that of cell towers. Findings on electrical stations comparative to cell towers. Electrical stations as they stand pose minimal to no is generally accepted as minimal to no health impacts as they're currently described. The cell towers potentially do. So impact on neighbors yes tied to health but as far as enjoyment of property ad diminishing value um I think that diminished value because of the nature of the application does bear a little bit of weight because of the cell tower usage and the potential impacts of that um not necessarily on health but because of application. Um, so that's the one consideration that I'm considering that is in the negative against that and it's just weighing that consideration against the relative applicability of use in that type of environment that that seems pretty applicable in my opinion. It's pretty compatible. Um, I don't I'm not educated enough on the health um impacts because from what I can tell it is a gray area. Um,

even scientists can't agree.

Yeah. And and I'm not saying I'm smarter than a scientist one way or the other, but I am leveraged to air on the side of caution when it comes to health and safety more than anything. Um, if it's a 50-50 shot, I'll give the 51% safety versus not safety. Um, but impact to neighbors or an impact to the neighborhood and diminishing of value. I think if I if I give credence to compatibility as a yes, impact neighbors as a no, that that will impact the neighbor, then the 51% weighs closer to that of of health and safety. So, I think it meets some, but it doesn't meet others as far as we evaluate the criteria. That's sort of where I'm struggling is I'm at a yes and yes, yes and no. then a

decided I was playing devil's advocate.

No, that that's kind of where I'm leaning and trying to understand what information is presented by the the petitioners as well as what's been presented by the community as well and kind of weighing those as well as what I've done in the research recently as well in this type of a application. For me too, if you just I mean, if you're reading the findings of facts, it doesn't make the cuff for it compared to what we've heard from the neighbors and Kevin and Jim [Music] in harmony with all evasive land uses, altering the character of the district, property value, interest, public health, safety, morals, and general for the community. Yeah, I'd say we have four votes here that say property value would be diminished. That's typically not a criteria for us though.

It can be an emotional criteria but it is finding number five in this case. Pardon? It is finding number five on property tax. H you only have to find well at least one doesn't reach doesn't reach and and that's why they want to to so much regular property values because while I've been doing this for five years full time I'm not an expert but I mean just if I'm looking at the proposed special exemption is not in harmony with all adjacent land uses that the first one for me all adjacent land uses residential is one of the main adjac ent land use and it doesn't match with that. You agree?

Mr. L. No. Um I think the land use is is comprehensive with that is industrial in what it is. I see adjacent. Yeah. Land use. That's what the phrase is in harmony with all adjacent land uses. On number three. Well, there no it's is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district of the Alberta comprehensive plan was the first finding effect. I'm look at number three on that.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on number one. I apologize. There's no but consideration has been given regardless of or not in regard with consideration to adjacent land uses. We've put up puds and we've put up others that are not necessarily in line with the adjacent but is reasonable within transition area. So I I still in harmony so harmony is it's not going to drastically impact the land use and comparative to what is currently there. What is currently there is 165t pole. Um, is 185 ft pole no longer in harmony with that? I

mean, and what's the city code? What we said like 200 feet or something? I don't know. Could we add another pole there? If you add two towers there, I mean, I'm just saying if we're setting a precedent for it, is that considered because now you got the substation that's already 165. We have another one that's 185. Could you add another one that's 185 and consider it still okay because we've added it so we've set the precedent?

It's a special exemption though based upon every circumstance where a special exemption is requested. I think two would be more applicable as a negative. The first would be injurous, public health, safety, morals, general welfare of the community because it's unsubstantiated information that I can't validate one direction or the other. None of us can expertify. Yeah, we're not

right. [Music] I guess I'm telling you too, as a homeowner, I'm worried about the house I'm going to sell. Okay. Well, we've discussed it. We'll proceed with findings of fact and I mean it's just affected by this. Oh, no. It's 1,000 ft away. It's very close. Oh, that wasn't the property value is not my thing. But if you want me to not answer on that one, I'm fine doing that, too. No, I mean it's your consideration. You feel capital A

UB you are in one 123. I mean you weren't this project. If I do a question on this fact if I don't agree all of them but I agree with one of them you still if you disagree with if we disagree with one it's done. Okay. Okay, Mr. Bosworth, may we have the findings of fact? Finding fact for special exception BZA special use 2025-2. Number one, the proposed special exception is or is not consistent with the purpose of the zoning district of the Auburn comprehensive plan

is is not Logan Zuber. Let me read a second. Okay. It is not. So we have two and two. Yeah. Okay. Number two, uh, and we'll talk about we'll talk about a fun fact for that. Yeah. Number two, the proposed special exception will or will not be jurisd. Will will will not

will not. So two and two again. Okay, we'll move on to three. The proposed special exception is risen not in harmony with all adjacent land uses. Is not is is not is. Number four, post special exception will or will not offer the character of the district. Will will not will not will not. Five, the proposed special exception will not substantially impact property value in an adverse manner. Will will will not

will not. Okay. So, we have and as we've talked before, in order to approve something like this, you have to have three votes for and and we have only two votes for either side. So, we actually are taking no action on this tonight until we have a fifth member the next meeting. So, we'll have to be put over to the next meeting. Can we just Can we continue? Yes. Can we vote still motion? Yeah, you can make a motion. So, I don't know what verbage. Well, do we we need findings of fact that before we can vote on it, right? Yeah. We have to agree on findings. Yeah, we do. So, let's go back number one.

You each will have to because there's two and two if we're going to go through all the kinds of facts. We each have to get for both sides. We know where we're going to end up. So I'd rather not do that. Yeah. No, I think that it because we're gonna tableing it for a fifth. Yeah. Tabling it for a fifth member would be appropriate. Make sure that we have two to two relative to the whole thing. Well, we would have to have three for each one. And I don't think we're going to get there on each one. If you had three to deny just one that we don't No, we did the will the No, we that was a favorable not to deny it finding. Okay. So, we have made a decision on four findings.

You should do a motion to I agree. Come back go through it next month and give us a chance to really do some research. Make a motion. Okay. What do I say for this? I will make motion to deny BZA special use 2025-00002. Second. All in favor? I no nay. I So we have three to deny. Is that your vote? Yes.

Okay. And now we do need to go back and make sure we have time to support your votes because I know that now. I thought it was going to be two to two because they're not going to be continuous. No. If if they're voting to deny it, can I can I speak at all? It's the closed to reread these.

Yes, I think so. Just to make sure that there's a record of votes. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, finding a fact for the proposed special exemption consistent with the purpose of the zoning district on the comprehensive plan staff of course found that it is not it is consistent. Uh it is not consistent is the finding effect you want to find. Uh what are your reasons there for those who voted is not is not consistent. That'd be you guys. That would be even I'm finding I was going to say I found that it is consistent but I'm not Yeah. So we're restating the negatives.

Yeah. So we're they're stating the negative and the rationale behind it. You believe that the the zoning district wouldn't want to put that tower in that area so close to residential properties. Is that what I heard before? Yeah. We're taking this down over here. Okay. Do you want to adopt that finding then? Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. Okay. Number two, the the special exception will or not will not be juris. I said will. I said I said will.

Will. I said will not. And Dave said will not. Will not. Okay. So my assertion for the will on that one is the science is unclear enough and therefore um there is no defined criteria that will prove that it will not be injurous to the public that I can identify at this point in time. Okay. So it isn't clear that it will not be injurous. Okay. And you're as you said you're falling on the side of safety. Falling on the side of caution believing that it will not it will be injurous. Yes. more more than you there's more than likely more than correct in your discussion. Yes. Okay.

Number three, the uh proposed exception is there are not in harmony with all lands. Is not because my biggest thing was it's surrounded by residential. Residential too close. Yeah. Is that with an is Dave was not residential because of res being too close. That'd be defining a factor. So we have to agree now either four or five. Is that you did agree on four? I believe proposed special exception will not alter the character of the district. Will will not will not light industrial.

So you want adaptive staff finding there. Three out of four of you. Correct. Yes. And five is proposed special exception will or will not substantially impact property value. Will will will not will not. Okay. But they will not say uh that property values will be impacted suspension adverse manner because well I heard the neighbors talk and I mean they've already had the substation double and adding more stuff to I can I just can't imagine it does not help. Okay.

You believe it's it's an over overbuild for the area? Yes. Okay. I mean, it's not the use of it. That's why we're here for the special exemption. Okay. And your motion denied was approved, right? Yes. Yes. Okay. This over to another meeting. Anything else for it?

Sorry, that was our longest one, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't get caught up. after the meeting. I have one more thing to do. I just um attorney I'm the attorney. Okay. Transfer. Um it'll be it'll give me the appeal process.

Yep. You can check with Mr. in his office. Okay. [Music] Okay. I'll open the public hearing for BCA standard variance 2025-010 staff report. Oh, let me open it up. Thank you. Uh, excuse me. Wayne and Nathan McInter, they filed a request uh to erect a six-foot privacy fence uh within what is the front yard setback area along 10th Street frontage of the property which is uh located at 402 South Cedar Street. So, it's the uh southeast corner of Cedar Street at 10th. Uh this uh variance required a public uh notice to be posted in the newspaper that was published in the star on August 6th and there were five adjacent property owners sent notice on July 30th. The uh applicant submitted a scroll one down. This is the drawing of the fence they would like to install. The part that is encroaching is where it juts out towards the sidewalk along 10th Street. the remainder of the sidewalk or fence um does comply with the UDO requirements as they've shown it. Uh the property is zoned downtown commercial as is all the surrounding property around it. Couple of photographs of the property. Uh these were taken. They've done some clearing on the property. They actually secured a permit to start installation of that portion of the fence that is not in the setback area. So what they have done so far, if you happen to look at it here with the last couple of days, uh is compliant with their permit, but the fence goes along where that tree row uh

used to be. This is from 10th Street looking south. And then this was um looking west along 10th Street. So the fence is able to go as close to the sidewalk or 10th Street as the existing building. And this is just an area of the property they intend to fence in. We did not receive any uh comment from our uh from neighbors or the public notices. When you have a uh corner lot, um you in essence have two front yards. So the front yard of the property is along Cedar Street, but it's also parallel to 10th Street. The applicant intends as they have already started putting up a six-ft tall privacy fence and I mentioned those fence permits been issued. The uh downtown commercial zoning district what's unique about it is that there is a zero foot building setback. So if they wanted to expand that existing building or put a new building, it could be up to the property line, which in essence is probably a foot off the sidewalk. Um, however, if there if the building is pushed back from the property line, there can be no fence installed in that front yard setback area. I struggle with that. I struggle with the fact he could put a building on the property line of 10, two stories, three stories, but you can't put a fence there. It just seems a little bit interesting. I assume it was written that way. You have some homes in the downtown area and you have some commercial buildings that are set back a little bit off of the uh property line. They just uh they the ordinance itself, they did not want to support having fences within the front yard setback area. The um so again with the staff recommendation is I I struggled with

this. I struggle with the fact that they could add onto the building and and be up to the property line. So, that's really where I'm basing our recommendation off of is that um since a building can go up to the property line, I don't see why a fence cannot, especially in this scenario where it's on the side corner of the property, not truly in the front yard of the home. Um, and so it's our opinion that the uh setback requirement should be the same for the fence as for the building. So we do uh support the variance application and have submitted proposed findings of fact for your consideration.

Does the front of the house face Cedar Street? I think there's doors on both sides if I recall. I drove by it but I didn't I don't know if I have a picture of the front of the home. I'm sure the applicant can clarify that for us. But I know there's a door on the side of the home towards Ted Street like a side door surrounded by parking lots. Questions, comments? Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward, state your name, your address, and spell your last name, please?

My name is Nathan McInter. M C E N T A R F E R uh 404 South Cedar Street. Um which is the property directly to the south of the Grey House that you guys saw the picture of. Uh to answer your question, the main address to that faces the front door faces Cedar Street. There is a door that faces north off of 10th Street where the driveway is at. Um, if you can go back to the picture that had Okay, back right there beside where the arrow is, there's a a small porchway that or deck that comes off of there that almost goes out to the uh the sidewalk and that is the where the garage is. Um, our plans are to come off the corner of the house towards the sidewalk and then come all the way down along the sidewalk right at our property line uh to put a fence in there. Um, if we're not granted this variance, one of the reason that we're asking for it is we're not able to use this property to its fullest potential. We uh parked cars there from the body shop um during the year and and also during the fair uh in the backyard. Um we've done a lot of cleanup in this area between 10th and 11th Street already. Um we removed all the the brush and junk trees down through there. They're all those invasive tree of heaven deals that are harder and heck to get rid of. Um we we took all that out. We rely on the lot uh at the south end on the other side of the the Stuckco house there where the fairground zones. Uh we park cars there as well, but when the fair is going on, we're unable to use that. So we there was some pictures there. You can see there's a truck bed that's sitting in the driveway there on that cart. And then there was also some aerial photos that show you can see there where cars

are parked in the backyard. Um, actually where the gravel lot is on the corner of 11th and Cedar Street, we've extended that all the way out clear down to the brush. The fairgrounds owned it owns it, but our uh business took care of the expense of putting gravel in there and finishing everything out there that we did. Um, this is just a way alls we're trying to do is just clean this property up and this area up uh uh the best of our capabilities and our abilities. um we would lose about four parking spots between the corner of the house and the sidewalk um that wouldn't be able to be parked. Uh like I said, we're going to we're not going to be able to use this property to its fullest potential. And I think it's a I think it's kind of silly that we could build a building there and go as high as we wanted to, but we're here over a 6ft privacy fence. Um, so that's the reason that we're uh asking that you follow the recommendations in the staff report. Um, the other side to this, I know that these aren't granted off of convenience, but it just cleaning this up the way that it has, um, I don't know if you guys have been by there at all or not, but from the way it looked before versus how it is now, the property owner, which is Andrew Cruz, to the owns the gravel strip there to the east side of it. Um, the fair sets up their stage there. they're able to get a lot more use of that property for their bleachers uh towards the back of it um by having it cleaned up the way that it was. I bet you we removed um at least probably 30 foot of scrub and things like that that were down through there. Um so it's just it's it's cleaning everything up a lot better and it's it's doing nothing but I don't think improving the look of of the area. I mean, we've had several people stop by and and comment on how good it looks now, and it's not even anywhere close to being done compared to what it it looked

like before. Nobody said that they didn't like it. So, all the adjacent property owners are in agreement with it. Um, so we're just asking that you follow what is in the staff report and allow us to put a fence up so we don't have to put a building. Thank you very much. Yep. Thank you. The property does look good. worked hard. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for against this project? If not, I will close a public hearing. Board discussion think a residential and a downtown commercial. Any additional screening might be beneficial. Perfect for everybody. Yeah. Yeah.

Yep. May we have the findings of fact, please? Yes, sir. Try to make this sub development standards various species standards 2025-10. Number one, the approval of various will not be the public health safety morals will prove not Mr. Staff. Yes. Number two, the use of value of the area property will not be effective. Will not adopt the staff. Yes. Three, the strict application of terms of the ordinance will not practical difficulties. Well, Yes, sir. Thank you. You're all set. Best of luck. Better make a motion, though.

Oh, yeah. Let's make a motion. Move to approve BCA standard variance 2025 010. Second. All in favor? I I approved. [Music] Any other business? We have a meeting next month. Okay. Report officers attorney. Members of the audience. All set. Second. All in favor? I. That was an interesting I'm like