Loading...
2005-01-05 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/05/2005 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 5, 2005 (continued from December 1, 2004) Buffalo Grove Park District Rolling Hills North Park, 1951 Sheridan Road Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile Busch Grove Community Park, 801 McHenry Road Proposed cellular communications tower by T-Mobile Vice Chairman Samuels called the continued hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Vice Chairman Samuels read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Planner Vice Chairman Samuels noted the court reporter was not able to make it to the meeting due to the weather and it is the intention of the Plan Commission to proceed with a complete recorded transcript of the proceedings and it is very important that everyone use the microphones and identify themselves clearly. Vice Chairman Samuels further noted the first hearing for this evening is the continuance of the public hearing concerning Rolling Hills North Park. He explained that the Buffalo Grove Park District filed three petitions for Special Uses for permission to place cellular antennas in three parks: Bison Park, Busch Grove Community Park and Rolling Hills North Park. At the meeting on December 1, 2004 public hearings were conducted on all three petitions. The petitioner had presented all of its evidence for all three of the parks and the proceedings were then suspended during the public hearing for Rolling Hills North Park due to the lateness of the hour. This was at the point when the public was to begin cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses with regard to the Rolling Hills North Park location. Vice Chairman Samuels then reopened the public hearing concerning Rolling Hills North Park and asked if there was any cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses by interested parties. The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit U: Customer Complaint Depiction, December 29, 2004 Exhibit V: Projected Coverage Mapping, December 29, 2004 Exhibit W: Market Analysis Report prepared by Mark J. Layne & Associates, December 30, 2004 Exhibit X: Photograph of Cell Antenna on Comm Ed Towers Exhibit Y: 22 page document entitled, Impact of Cellular Phone Bay Station Towers on Property Values, Ninth Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, January 19-22, 2003 Exhibit Z: Drawing by James Wiczer of Rolling Hills North Ball Field Exhibit AA: Photograph of Existing Conditions at Rolling Hills Park by James Wiczer Exhibit BB: Photograph of backstop fence by James Wiczer Exhibit CC: Original Memo from Mr. Pfeil to the Plan Commission, December 9, 2004 Exhibit DD Memo from Mr. Pfeil to the Plan Commission, December 28, 2004 Exhibit EE: Petition from residents in opposition to the zoning variance Exhibit FF: Buffalo Grove Park District Mission Statement There was a question from an audience member regarding the availability of a transcript of the previous hearing. Vice Chairman Samuels noted there will be a transcript available but one has not yet been ordered by any of the parties. The audience member then asked for a summary of the hearing. Vice Chairman Samuels noted there were three public hearings and the actual presentation from the petitioner on this particular hearing was relatively brief. He noted he could not ask the petitioner to re-present their evidence. He further noted either the transcript or minutes can be supplied at a future time. However, he cannot force the petitioner to put on their case a second time. Mr. Rick Epstein, 1927 Sheridan Road, asked what the height of the current power lines are. Mr. Green stated there are two rows of towers and they are 75 feet and 90 feet in height. Mr. Epstein asked if the proposed antenna was taller than the 75 foot towers. Mr. Green stated that was correct. The proposed tower was to be 90 feet. Mr. Epstein asked if any evidence had been gathered to prove that there will not be a reduction in property values based on other similar towers put up in other neighborhoods. Mr. Green stated they have prepared a market report that shows information regarding that question but it has not been part of the public evidence to date. Mr. Epstein asked if that evidence showed no change in property values or that there is the same growth in property values as in neighborhoods without antennas. Mr. Green stated it shows that there is no change or adverse effect on property value. Mr. Epstein asked when that information would be available to the community. Mr. Green stated that is not part of the presented evidence. If the Plan Commission wishes that presented they have those reports but it would be the choice of the Plan Commission.. Mr. Epstein stated it might benefit the neighborhood which is resistant to this proposal now. Ms. Kimberly Levy, 1940 Beverly Lane, asked what is involved in the maintenance of the towers. Mr. Green stated that in addition to the cell tower you also have the support station which is a building of about 150-200 square feet. There is some general ongoing maintenance that one would expect to have over the life of a cell tower. There are wires that run between the support building and the tower itself. There is also general maintenance of the building. This is not significant maintenance or regular ongoing element. It is sporadic and periodic at best. Ms. Levy asked if there are batteries at the top of the cell tower. Mr. Green stated they are in the structure at the base. Mr. Bob Giometti, 2120 Birchwood Lane, asked why the area of coverage levels shown in one exhibit and Exhibit Q are different as Exhibit Q shows strong coverage. Mr. Green noted the two items referred to are Exhibit 2 and Exhibit Q. He stated the answer given last time was fairly short and they have had the opportunity to collect additional information. It is his understanding that the maps shown in the attachments are ride by maps. Those are measurements along specific major roadways. They are not overall general measurings. These were done in a vehicle while being driven by someone reading the information or recording the information on a handheld device. T-Mobile has informed him that that is not the most accurate way to measure things but it certainly is one measurement to be used. It is not an overly specific or all inclusive measurement. As a result of that Exhibit Q was also generated which is a more standard projection of all of the regions. On Exhibit Q you can see that there are number of areas serving the Buffalo Grove community that have very weak or difficult signals. They have also informed him that even that can change with time depending on a variety of conditions. However, it is a much better general reading. T-Mobile is seeking to provide overall service for the entire community area and has sought to find locations that would, when combined together, provide that coverage and the three proposals by the processor required to be considered independently. But it has been planned and processed and programmed as an overall development plan to provide overall general coverage throughout the Village area. Mr. Giometti noted there was very little signal strength data included on the three letters whereas Exhibit Q is more useful because it does actually have data on it. Mr. Green stated they apologize to the Village for creating confusion by having a partial report and not having the overall general report and he apologizes for not being sufficiently aware of the differences at the first meeting. Mr. Giometti noted this data alone does not say much about quality of service. He stated you could be in a marginal signal area and your performance could be just fine. As a T-Mobile customer himself he has experienced very few problems, if any, in the Buffalo Grove area with service. Vice Chairman Samuels noted the information supplied by Mr. Giometti is certainly interesting and relevant. However, at this stage of the proceeding what they are looking for are questions to the petitioner. He noted that if there are questions he would ask them now and with regard to information he might feel is relevant to the proceeding and for the Plan Commission deliberations and considerations, then at the portion when the Plan Commission asks for testimony from interested witnesses he would have the opportunity to present his information. Mr. Giometti noted that with respect to Rolling Hills the signal numbers there are anywhere from 100 times to 1000 times above what the cellular phones can actually operate at. Why does T-Mobile believe that three additional sites are needed in Buffalo Grove given that signal strengths are more than sufficient to provide excellent quality of service. Mr. Green stated that is because they are seeking to develop a network which services the entire community. It would be a perfect world if they could all be located in dead zones but the truth is that there are already areas that are marginal as well as decent. These sites have been located to develop an overall network serving the entire Buffalo Grove community. It will spill over because the signals do not just suddenly end because someone is creating a border on a map. Mr. Giometti stated it really does not matter what color area you are in because once you get above a certain threshold your quality is all the same. There is insufficient justification here for the additional cell towers, particularly for Rolling Hills. Mr. Marc Schwartz voiced his objection noting that this is cross-examination. Cross-examination is based upon the testimony that was proffered by the petitioner. A question has been asked as to what was the basis for the request by T-Mobile. The answer has been given. The gentleman has a great deal of knowledge and information but it is not the place nor the time, as this is a zoning application based upon use. He noted they have given the basis for their request and if this gentleman wants to refute that he can do so at some other forum or some other time during the meeting. He stated it is his understanding that the law of cross-examination is that you can be cross-examined about the testimony that was proffered. He stated this is now way outside that and have been way outside that for the last 15 minutes. Vice Chairman Samuels noted he agrees and disagrees with the objection to a certain extent. He stated he believes that the subject of the question that was asked is within the scope of the direct examination and that was what the need was. Mr. Schwartz noted that was answered by Mr. Green. Vice Chairman Samuels stated that brings him to his admonition that Mr. Giometti would be better served by making his point in the way of testimony than by couching it in terms of cross-examination of the witness. He further noted that if he has points to make later he might want to ask questions now that will give him the basis to bring up the points later. Vice Chairman Samuels once again noted that if Mr. Giometti has questions that he would like the petitioner to go on the record as being their testimony, ask those questions and let them put their answer on the record. If he wants to refute or offer other evidence then at the time for presenting evidence he could do that. Mr. Giometti asked if T-Mobile has quality of service data for Buffalo Grove that they could share with the Plan Commission. Mr. Green stated yes. He noted some of that has already been shared such as the infamous Exhibit Q. Mr. Giometti asked he is referring to things such as call drops, call originations. Mr. Green stated yes. Mr. Giometti asked if that data is actually available. Mr. Green stated yes. He noted the information is here but has not been introduced. Vice Chairman Samuels noted the petitioner cannot be asked about data not produced. Mr. Green stated they are here to try to respond to questions. He stated he is unaware as to whether or not they can introduce another element of evidence. If that is appropriate in the eyes of the Plan Commission, they are more than happy to introduce it. Vice Chairman Samuels stated it would be his inclination to accept more as opposed to less in terms of proffered information that would help reach a decision. Mr. Green stated since the last meeting T-Mobil has indeed created a record of customer complaints throughout the Buffalo Grove area. He introduced Exhibit U which is a customer complaint depiction in order to show where they have received complaints. This is just another tool in the process because some complaints don't get made and you cannot necessarily pinpoint the exactness or appropriateness of all complaints. However, it does create a general pattern and in that general pattern there are a number of complaints over the Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Green stated Exhibit V, projected coverage mapping is introduced because there have been a number of questions of how this will affect Buffalo Grove service opportunities. He stated that as they have been indicating the goal here is to provide an overall service program. Up to five sites were original considered by the Park District and it was narrowed down to the three. These sites do provide an overall service throughout the Buffalo Grove community. There are some overlaps with good and decent service areas now. What T-Mobile is seeking to do in conjunction with the Park District is to insure that there is area wide service community and in their opinion this would accomplish that. Vice Chairman Samuels noted these maps do not relate scale or orientation to Exhibit Q. He asked if the petitioner has something that translates this information to Exhibit Q. Mr. Green stated no. He noted that on Exhibit U they have shown in yellow the main roads that relate to the locations of the three proposed antennas. The Rolling Hills North antenna is south of Route 22 and the Busch Grove antenna is immediately east of Route 83 and the Bison Park antenna is immediately south of Dundee Road. The complaint patterns are fairly consistent with what is seen in Exhibit Q. Those areas shown in Exhibit Q as being weaker appear to be those areas where there are an increased number of complaints. Vice Chairman Samuels what information is on the complaint maps and do they include dropped calls, service complaints, bill complaints or whatever. Mr. Green stated these are call use complaints of a variety of reasons such as call interruptions, call drops, unable to get signal. Vice Chairman Samuels asked if the pinpoints on the maps indicate the place where the phone was at the time the complaint was received or when the issue arose. Mr. Green stated he is advised it is the area where it was identified that the complaint was from. Mr. Giometti asked if the petitioner has a breakdown of what the call complaints are from and if that could be made available. Mr. Green stated no. He stated they just took the call complaints and projected them all out and therefore could not be made available now. Mr. Giometti noted that we do not therefore know if these complaints are due to calls drops, call originations or some other issues. Mr. Green stated they do know it is related to all of those issues. Mr. Giometti asked how that is known without breakdowns. Mr. Green stated that is because they asked T-Mobile to generate a map based on those types of complaints but not on a specific complaint or specific item by item. Mr. Giometti noted the Rolling Hills Park site and Bison Park sites are about a mile away from the nearest T-Mobil existing cell tower site. Mr. Green stated yes. Mr. Giometti asked if it is typical for T-Mobile to space two sites so close together. Mr. Green stated he does not know that answer but he know they are looking at the community of Buffalo Grove and trying to provide the overall service for that and these are the best sites for that. Mr. Giometti asked how this compares to the average that T-Mobile receives for complaints. Mr. Green stated he does not know that answer. Mr. Giometti asked if the six figure revenue is over a number of years or a single year. Mr. Green stated he knows there is a desire on the part of a number of people to have specific numbers but there are no specific numbers. It can be lump sums, it can be periodic or over a long term. There are a number of arrangements that are made and they also have options within those arrangements. The total amount can vary widely depending on how the Park District chooses to take the income over time. That is why they can say that no matter how it is measured by the Park District it is a significant number of at least six figures. Mr. Giometti asked Mr. Green what the arrangement is for lease income generally. Mr. Green stated he has seen one where it was an up front income with a very small monthly stipend and there was another one which was over a period of time which increased the overall amount tremendously over the period of the lease but, of course, you got smaller portions each month or quarter. Mr. Giometti asked if a range of$800 to $2,000 per month would be in line with what Mr. Green has seen. Mr. Green stated that in accordance with the agreement and discussions and negotiations between the Park District and T-Mobile they are not to release specific numbers so he must respectfully decline to answer. Mr. Giometti asked if the Park District has investigated alternative ways of generating revenue such as corporate sponsorships and advertising. Mr. Green stated yes. Mr. Giometti asked if that is being pursued. Mr. Green stated yes. Ms. Beth Frazin, 1955 Sheridan Road, asked if the antenna is taller would it encompass a larger area and would reception be better. Mr. Green stated it is his understanding that it could. Ms. Frazin asked if the petitioner had explored putting an antenna on a high tension wire along Lake Cook and not in a park district. Mr. Green stated no, the Park District did not pursue that. Ms. Frazin asked why a park district would want to make a park look ugly with an antenna and run the risk of a child climbing up the service rungs. She stated children will dare each other to do things like that and this is just an accident waiting to happen. Mr. Green stated that is a statement and he cannot answer a statement. Ms. Frazin stated she believes it is possible to get the money into the park district without having the cellular towers in the park which is ugly. She feels they should explore other options and get corporations to fund in more money and not make our parks ugly. Ms. Michelle Siegel, 1971 Sheridan Road, asked what the exact location where the home values were assessed for the study performed. She asked if they were in an urban, rural or suburban setting. Mr. Green stated the market analysis report was prepared at the request of T-Mobile and reads: "Our study was conducted in a specific neighborhood in the north suburban Chicago community of Wilmette in which a wireless monopole antenna tower is situated amongst the existing dwellings in the neighborhood. This neighborhood was judged as ideally suited for the purpose of our study for four primary reasons:" 1. Wilmette is considered a relatively affluent north shore suburb. If the presence of communication towers does have an adverse impact on surrounding property values, it is logical to assume that property owners in an affluent suburb would be more likely to be sensitive to any perceived detrimental influences. 2. The site is unique in that the tower was erected in 1994 within an established family neighborhood in which the majority of homes were constructed during the late 60's and early 70's. 3. The neighborhood area is of sufficient size for us to draw a viable sample of sales transactions over the period studied. 4. The area impacted by the tower is delineated by roads and/or other natural or man-made boundaries so as to facilitate study of the impacted portion of the overall area separate and apart from the non-impacted portion. Further it states, "As detailed in Tables 1 through 4, the overall trend in values has been increasing at a relatively consistent rate across all measured categories. What's more, the trend of increasing prices was not interrupted subsequent to the construction of the wireless communication tower in 1994. Perhaps most important, sale prices in the impacted area, though more volatile due to the smaller sample size, exceeded price increases in the non-impacted and overall target areas by a considerable margin throughout most of the period studied." Lastly, "Per the preceding analysis, there is no evidence to suggest any adverse effect on property values in the impacted area that might be attributable to the construction or continued presence of the wireless communications tower located therein." Ms. Kathleen Evans, 551 Farrington Court, cited the St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper from December 14th article which says T-Mobile owes Fidelity $94,000 and continues to rack up charges for about 60,000 minutes of calls per month. T-Mobile owes some companies in western Missouri nearly $500,000 each. So twelve small telephone companies, including Fidelity, say they have tried every avenue to get T-Mobile to pay for connecting calls to their customers over the last three years. These twelve companies have approached SBC to start blocking T-Mobile calls as of that date. She asked what the Park District knows about T-Mobile's fiscal situation and stability to pay that six figure revenue. Mr. Schwartz stated that simply T-Mobile and the Park District are not going to publicly divulge any of the bases of their negotiations. Vice Chairman Samuels stated that answer was not really to the question that was asked. He stated the question was what the petitioner knows about T-Mobile's financial situation. The petitioner may not have to disclose exactly what you know but the question is, do you know? Mr. Schwartz stated there is no question in his mind that that is way outside the scope of any presentation they made. Vice Chairman Samuels stated the Park District has made the collection of revenue from these petitions a very, very relevant issue. He would also suggest that they would not be here if the revenue was not an issue. Therefore, he thinks it is appropriate to explore the issues. Mr. Green stated the best answer in relation to the Park District is that they have found T-Mobile representatives to be admirable and honorable. Vice Chairman Samuels stated that does not answer the question either. He stated the question is does the Park District have information about T-Mobile's financial capabilities, wherewithal, and stability. Mr. Green stated the answer is certainly they have negotiated as part of their program appropriate backup, support, letter of credit, and bonding so that they have comfort level that is reasonable and works for them. Mr. David Baruch, 612 Hackberry Court, asked if the coverage map could be accomplished by using the Comm Ed towers and have the same results. Mr. Green stated yes. Mr. Baruch asked if the Park District investigated any revenue sharing opportunities with Comm Ed so that the revenue could flow from T-Mobile through Comm Ed and back to the Park District. Mr. Green stated no. Mr. Baruch asked if the petitioner had considered going beyond the requirements of the Village for security around the support building. Mr. Green stated the requirements are exceedingly specific. Mr. Baruch asked if a variance to the screening requirement had been considered to make the facility safer. Mr. Green noted the specific requirements are: "Fencing—To discourage unauthorized access and to minimize any danger to persons, all towers and other antenna support structures and ground level equipment shall be enclosed by a fence at least six feet in heights and otherwise meeting requirements of this title." Further regarding the screening, "That structure shall be screened from view by non-deciduous vegetation at least six feet in height except if alternative screening would be more appropriate." Mr. Baruch noted that since the petitioner is looking for a variance for the other zoning requirements, why not seek a variance for this facility in a Park District which has children in it to make it safer. Mr. Green stated there is a presumption that the Village probably already measured when it created the ordinance because they were very specific and focused very carefully on what they thought was an appropriate level of safety. Mr. Baruch stated that was still not an answer. Mr. Green stated they have no reason to seek a variation as they think the ordinance as written is appropriate. Mr. Brian Fooden, 1954 Sheridan Road, asked if a letter of credit be part of the agreement between the Park District and T-Mobile. Mr. Green stated a letter of credit is also a requirement of the Village ordinance. Mr. Fooden asked what the amount would be. Mr. Green stated it is specifically spelled out in the ordinance and is based on a 10 year program and 125 percent of that. Mr. Fooden asked what the formula is for determining the dollar amount. Mr. Green noted, the petitioner shall provide a cash bond or letter of credit to the Village equivalent to 125 percent of the sum of the estimated cost of maintenance for a ten year period and a cost of removal and disposal of the entire installation. There are also other provisions for restoration of the site. Mr. Fooden stated he is more concerned with the financial security behind this that will insure collection of the revenue stream. Mr. Schwartz stated they are not going to discuss the contents of the negotiations between the Park District and T-Mobile. Ms. Ellen Wiczer, 608 Hackberry Court West, asked if the property value study was done when this project first proposed or was it strictly the result of last month's meeting. Mr. Green stated this has been the result of questions raised at last month's meeting. Ms. Wiczer noted that much of the cell phone tower ordinance does not seem to be directed at a park which might be some of the issues that the residents are coming up against. Mr. Green noted that the ordinance was generated almost at the same time that this process was happening. It was the Park District's initial application that stimulated a re-examination by the Village of its own zoning ordinance. The Village created the zoning ordinance and the Park District was present at the public meetings and at the workshops involved in that and did provide some input. The Village is very concerned about safety, visibility, and access and so is the Park District. The ordinance is reasonable in their opinion. Ms. Wiczer asked what the relationship is to the proposed fencing and arborvitae with the T-ball park. Mr. Green stated they are off of the left field line by probably 20-25 feet. Ms. Wiczer stated it looked like it was right where the outfielders were going to be running to catch a fly ball and she was concerned about that. Mr. Green stated the Park District was certainly concerned about where the tower was located in relation to the uses and they have absolutely considered that. As part of this process they moved it further to the southeast in order to have it be behind more where screening and backstop netting is so they could ensure maximum protection safety. None of the proposals that are being presented would be presented if the Park District felt or believed they would impact the utilization of the parks for the functions in which they are intended. Ms. Wiczer asked why there is a large mound of dirt spread on the proposed site. Mr. Green stated it is just filling up a low spot. Ms. Wiczer noted the ballfield is sitting a little lower than the power towers. She asked if the petitioner is proposing the base of the building and the pole be at the level of the power towers or at the level of the park. Mr. Green stated they will work with the existing level of the park otherwise you would be affecting the drainage pattern. Vice Chairman Samuels asked that the questions be restricted to the petition to put a cell tower in the park. Ms. Wiczer asked what kind of vehicle would use the proposed 12 foot easement. Mr. Green stated just a small truck or a bobcat. Ms. Wiczer asked how often the site would be visited. Mr. Green stated it would be very infrequently. He further noted there is a parking lot on the other side of the high tension line right of way and most of the time people would be walking to that building instead of taking vehicles to it. Ms. Wiczer asked if the 12 foot bikepath is an appropriate access to the proposed tower. Mr. Green noted access is provided and access is available. Mr. James Wiczer, 608 Hackberry Court West, asked for clarification of previous statements about the need for variations. Mr. Green stated there are two variations being requested. One of them is the location and the other is the height. Mr. Wiczer stated he perceives that the petitioner is here only to do a service to the community by locating this in the most optimal position. He asked if this was a misconception on his part. Mr. Green stated he believes that they indicated that as part of the proposal they sought, in their opinion, to minimize the impact. Mr. Wiczer stated there has been quite a bit of testimony that this is for economic gain for the Park District. The definition of a variance explicitly says that should not be the reason for seeking a variance. Vice Chairman Samuels asked if the question is being asked with regard to a variance or is it asked with regard to the petition. Mr. Wiczer asked what the justification for seeking a 90 foot tower was. Mr. Green stated as the Park District indicated in the hearings that were held on the creation of the zoning ordinance and as has been represented to them by T-Mobile and others, a cell tower limitation tied to the zoning district height would result in not providing the opportunity for an effectively or useful array to be placed. The Village decided to tie the height limits to the height limits of the zoning district. Different zoning districts provide different heights. In order for this Special Use which they do make provisions for in the new ordinance, to be viable a height variation is necessary and required and is a hardship not created by the petitioner. Mr. Schwartz stated it is the province of the Plan Commission and the Board of Trustees to make a determination as to whether the testimony they have proffered during the public hearing is sufficient to meet the standards set for in the ordinance. He noted they have submitted that testimony to the best of their ability. If it is your determination that they have not met the requirements, then that is a decision you are making individually. He stated they have tendered and proffered the testimony and it is the providence of the Commission and the Board to determine whether they have met the applicable standards required for a variation request. Mr. Wiczer stated the Municipal code states the petitioner shall demonstrate the minimum height required to provide satisfactory operation of the wireless facility or other telecommunications equipment. He asked if that has been provided as he has not seen it. Vice Chairman Samuels noted they did provide testimony about the height. Mr. Wiczer asked what the basis was for optimizing the minimum height. Mr. Green stated during the course of the various workshops there were a number of discussions about the height. There had been a considerable amount of information that had been discussed during the workshop processes. There was testimony provided regarding the height and it was their indication that it was the minimum height that was necessary and they did that in conjunction with discussions that indicated they had originally proposed the height of 100 feet and it was reduced to 90 feet for this site. They had originally proposed 100 feet at Bison which was reduced to 80 feet. Effectively they had reduced the total request of all three by 20 feet in consideration of those discussions and examinations by the engineers who developed the plans. Mr. Wiczer stated he did not hear what the minimum height required was and how they determined 90 feet to be the height to be used. Vice Chairman Samuels noted that the petitioner had been asked during the course of the workshops to reduce the heights of the towers to the minimums they could. Then they submitted they had performed that. The testimony was that that is what they did. Mr. Wiczer asked why the petition is consistent with Section 17.34.040.H.10 of the code which says that only one ground level tower or antenna support structure shall be permitted on a zoning lot. Mr. Schwartz stated their petition comports with the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance of the Village of Buffalo Grove. Their testimony supports their petition. Vice Chairman Samuels asked what the question was as they have only asked for one tower. Mr. Wiczer stated there was already a tower there. Vice Chairman Samuels stated not on their zoning lot. Mr. Wiczer stated there is a tower 12 feet from where the proposed tower is to be put. Vice Chairman Samuels stated it is not on their zoning lot. Mr. Wiczer noted that one of the special use criteria states the special use will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes permitted in the zoning district. He asked if it is true this tower does not interfere. Mr. Schwartz stated their testimony was proffered at the public hearing which took place in December. Mr. Wiczer asked why the petitioner feels their property value study is better than the one he found suggesting there is a 0-20 percent decline in property values as a result of a cell phone tower. Mr. Green stated the last paragraph of the referenced study, page 3, reads, `Be advised that as a Certified General appraiser in the states of Illinois and Wisconsin and an Appraisal Foundation Certified USPAP Instructor, I am bound by the ethics, rules, and standards of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and therefore cannot ethically accept assignments contingent upon the reporting of a predetermine or stipulated result or a direction in the results that favors the cause of a client. My conclusions herein are entirely my own and based on objective empirical research as conducted by myself or members of my firm without bias or advocacy and without regard to personal interest." Mr. Wiczer asked if the study quoted was subject to peer review. Mr. Green stated he believes he just answered that question. Mr. Wiczer asked again if it was subject to peer review. Mr. Schwartz stated he does not know if it is relevant and he does not know how that is part of the cross-examination. Thirdly, just to answer the question and keep this moving, he does not know. Mr. Wiczer showed a photo of dirt being placed precisely in the location of the proposed construction site, and he questions why construction has already begun. Mr. Schwartz stated construction has not begun. He stated he suspected what is referred to is the same dirt that Mrs. Wiczer also referenced and the answer they gave is that there is a low spot out there and that was general maintenance. There has been no construction of any tower or outbuilding or anything related to the application that is before this Commission because the Park District understands that until an approval is received they are not allowed to do such a thing. Mr. Sergio Rubinstein, 2055 Sheridan Road, asked if the Village can have its own study of property values. Vice Chairman Samuels stated none has been ordered. Mr. Rubinstein asked if that is something that the Village would consider on behalf of the community. He noted they are all concerned with the value of their property as well as safety and health issues. He asked if there is any data showing how close a person can be on a continuous basis without problems. Vice Chairman Samuels stated there is no intention of the Village ordering a market study. The Village could do so if they deemed it necessary but they have not done so to this point. With regard to the health issues it must be noted that there is a federal statute that prohibits the Village in its deliberations regarding cell tower locations from going there. It has no relevance and the Village cannot go there. No matter what attempts are made by the Village, the public or anyone else, it cannot affect the Village's decision with regard to placement of cell towers. The federal government has enacted a law which says that. He noted he will not permit additional questions with regard to the health effects of cell towers. If the Village used any kind of testimony regarding health issues as a reason for not allowing the cell tower, it could be overturned in a federal court and the Village will not consider health reasons. Mr. Rick Epstein asked what the dimensions and physical characteristics of the cell tower in the neighborhood referenced in the study done commissioned by T-Mobile and how it compares to this neighborhood. Mr. Green stated he would have to look up in the study what it says. Mr. Epstein asked if this was the only study the Park District had to look at appraisal or value differences. Mr. Green stated it is his understanding that T-Mobile retained this entity to not only do a study but to identify the most appropriate location comparable for that study. Mr. Epstein asked if the Park District had considered the thoughts and opinions of the people in the neighborhood before they made the decision to do this. Mr. Green stated there were discussions in Park District meetings about the potential implications politically as well as economically and socially. The Park District meetings are public and open but he does not know if anyone attended any of those meetings. Mr. Epstein stated as to the financial revenue he hears six figures which is roughly $100,000 over 20 years with 40,000 residents in the community which comes out to about $2.00 a person over 20 years. He asked if they had thought about that number and whether affecting the community is worth doing that for such a small sum. Mr. Green stated yes. Obviously it was felt that it was enough consideration for this process to be started. Ms. Ellen Wiczer asked what the cell phone tower was located on in the study conducted in Wilmette. Mr. Schwartz noted it was a monopole antenna. Ms. Wiczer asked if it was in a park. Mr. Schwartz stated no, it was in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Raysa asked if the question before that answer was given on the height. Mr. Schwartz stated the answer to the question before was the report does not set forth the height of the antenna. It describes it as a monopole antenna and there is a photograph in the report. Testimony by interested person's witnesses: Vice Chairman Samuels swore in Mr. Giometti as a witness. Mr. Bob Giometti, 2128 Birchwood Lane, stated his testimony relates primarily to the justification that has been provided by the petitioner. He stated these are all facts based on his own knowledge of the technology that T-Mobile uses and what its capabilities are. Based on the data T-Mobile has provided on the existing service level map, Exhibit Q, signal levels are shown to be well above what are needed to provide the quality of service that cellular carriers expect and what customers expect. In particular, he noted, the levels shown in Rolling Hills Park show levels that range from 100 times to 1000 times what is needed to support a high quality of service. In the Bison Park area 50 times to 1000 above what is required is shown and Busch Grove 10 times to 50 times above the specification. In Busch Grove in particular the 10 times requirement really lies more to the west of the site. Mr. Raysa noted that there are three distinct public hearings and we are on the Rolling Hills hearing. Vice Chairman Samuels noted the witness needed to limit his testimony strictly to Rolling Hills. Mr. Giometti noted the petitioner has stated their interest is to provide a higher quality of service to Buffalo Grove. Signal propagation does not stop at Village boundaries. Exhibit V shows an area of high level signals and you can see this saturated area is not only in the Buffalo Grove area but also to the west in the primarily Long Grove area. He noted it is the Long Grove area which will receive the greatest benefit from the proposed cell sites. Mr. Giometti noted that Exhibit U, Customer Complaint Depiction Map, is a compilation of different complaints that may or may not pertain to the additional need of the cell towers. We do not even know how this data was obtained so it is really of limited use and justification of the additional sites. We also do not really know how this depiction compares on a broader scale, whether it is throughout the State of Illinois or throughout the Midwest and throughout the nation. This may be typical for T-Mobile's performance. He stated it is his opinion that the data that has been presented by T-Mobile is insufficient justification for the additional sites and in particular for the Rolling Hills site. Mr. Giometti stated he did some research on what could be expected on revenue generation based on a nationwide basis on data from 2004. He stated he finds the range of revenue to be $800-$2,000 per month for a single site. He estimated that a site such as Rolling Hills might generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500 per month. That amount is about $18,000 per year. There are over 16,000 households in Buffalo Grove based on the 2000 census which means it is only about $1.00 per household that we are talking about here which does not seem to be a significant amount of revenue. Vice Chairman Samuels swore in Mr. James Wiczer, 608 Hackberry Court West. Mr. Wiczer presented a photograph of an electrical power transmission tower similar to those in his backyard in the park. It showed a cell phone antenna attached to that transmission tower. That is the kind of alternative that he feels the Park District should be considering. Vice Chairman Samuels marked the photograph as Exhibit X. Mr. Wiczer presented a study called Impact of Cellular Phone Bay Station Towers on Property Values dated January 2003. He stated this is a published study and deals with the issues of the acceptance of a cell phone tower bay station in residential neighborhoods. This study states... consequently how these perceptions impact on property values was also mixed with responses from residents ranging from being prepared to pay the same to being prepared to paying more than 20 percent less for property located on CPBS. This study shows there is a wide range of opinions and information on the effect of cell phone towers on property valuations. Mr. Wiczer presented a drawing of the baseball field as it exists and the proposal by the Park District as to the location of the antenna and support building. He noted it shows the distance from home plate and the edge of the antenna being 120 feet. He stated it is his belief that the addition of this antenna, outbuilding, fence and bushes will interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property due to the close proximity of the border of this project and the existing diamond. This exhibit was drawn to scale based on the Park District submitted drawings. To accompany this he presented two photographs that show just how close the proposed site is to the park. Mr. Schwartz noted that Mr. Wiczer submitted Exhibit Y consisting of a 22 page study that was presented in Brisbane, Australia in 2003 and stated they have not had an opportunity to see that study and asked if that study performs a study of property values within the United States. Mr. Wiczer stated the study is within New Zealand. He stated it is a study about people's attitudes toward cell phone towers and it represents a survey of 60-100 people and how they feel about real estate located near a cell phone tower. Mr. Schwartz asked if it was in New Zealand. Mr. Wiczer stated yes. Mr. Schwartz asked if that study references any cell towers that are within the proximity of 100 feet of a series of high tension wires that are 75 feet high and 90 feet high. Mr. Wiczer stated it does not to his knowledge. Mr. Schwartz asked if Exhibit Z which is the drawing of the baseball field and the proximity of the cell tower is certified by an architect or an engineer or was it created by others. Mr. Wiczer stated it was actually created by the petitioner when the package was submitted. Mr. Schwartz stated they did not create that drawing. Mr. Wiczer noted they Xeroxed the petitioner's drawing and then they added color and markings to indicate where the baseball diamond is. We can call it a composite drawing. Mr. Schwartz asked how the measurements were obtained. Mr. Wiczer stated the measurements were taken from the drawing submitted by the Park District. Additional measurements were made with a tape measure. Mr. Schwartz asked if anyone who drew that picture or participated in drawing that picture have an architect's certification or an engineer's certification or was anything done that certified the accuracy of that document. Mr. Wiczer stated no. Commissioner Cohn asked if it is the shoulder of the Edens Expressway where the photo was taken of the tower in the assessment of market values. Mr. Green stated he does not know where the photo was taken. Commissioner Cohn asked if this picture was taken from the east looking west. Mr. Green stated it appears that way. Commissioner Cohn asked if the fact that the cell tower was located in a neighborhood that might already have been impacted by being proximal to an interstate highway considered by the drafter of this assessment. Mr. Green stated the report indicates in the four conditions on page 1 why that area was selected as having a variety of opportunities and one of those was that it did have a clear boundary and it references those boundaries. Commissioner Cohn asked if they considered the impact of the highway and the effect that that might already have had on neighborhood values and that a cell tower might not change. Mr. Green stated he could not give a specific answer to that question. Commissioner Bocek noted the market values assessment was done based on properties surrounding the cell tower, however, it does not compare those properties with other properties that are not next to a cell tower. Mr. Green stated it does make reference to the impacted area and non-impacted areas. It was indeed trying to measure the difference. Commissioner Bocek noted the assessment did say that the affected area increased 20 percent but it did not say what the non-affected area increased by. Mr. Green noted it did say in the report that the non-impacted area in this case had not increased as quickly as the impacted area. So it is the reverse that they are reporting. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if Mr. Layne actually wants us to believe that property in closer proximity to cell towers would actually increase in value at a greater rate than those in non-impacted areas. Mr. Green stated he is pointing out a study factor. He stated he chose not to try to amplify something that might be considered self serving. Vice Chairman Samuels noted there is a statement in the study that says the neighborhood area is of sufficient size for us to draw a viable sample of sales transactions over the period of study. He asked what the actual sample size was. Mr. Green stated he did not know. Summary and rebuttal by petitioner with regard to Rolling Hills: Mr. Schwartz noted that at the prior meeting they did not give a summary during any of the hearings and reserved the right to give an overall summary at the end of this public hearing. Vice Chairman Samuels stated that with that in mind he would like to do the summary and rebuttal by interested persons with regard to this public hearing first. Mr. Schwartz noted that would be fine and they will summarize after that. Vice Chairman Samuels asked if there was any summary or rebuttal by any interested persons of the case that was presented on behalf of the interested persons. There were none. Mr. Raysa asked that all public hearing be reopened now. Vice Chairman Samuels reopened both the public hearing with regard to Bison Park and the public hearing with regard to Busch Grove Park for summary and rebuttal by the petitioner. Mr. Schwartz noted each of those meeting took place on December 1, 2004 at which time notice was given the meeting was opened and continued to this evening. Mr. Green stated they have tried to provide input that they believe in and answers they believe in. They may not be the answers that people want to hear or the directions they had hoped elements would go in. They have sought to help to clarify additional questions or comments that were made in the first meeting. Mr. Green stated they are here on these three hearings on an application for a special use as outlined in the Village's zoning ordinance which was recently created. As part of that they are seeking some variations that require substantiation and justification. That is what they have sought to present. They have also south to try to answer the many questions that come up but often those questions lead them further and further away from that basic issue. Mr. Green stated this is not a process that began a month ago to public hearing This proposal did not begin eight months ago when the Village began to consider the ordinance relative to this particular type of use. These proposals are the result of a process that began 1 '/2-2 years ago with the government of the Buffalo Grove Park District. That consideration was done in response to its community wide demands to maintain the quality of park district services and programs and to continue to increase the programs where needed by a growing demand and to find and use alternative revenue sources other than tax capped limited property tax and referendum. In that same period the Park District undertook a community wide survey that gave them specific and clear feedback from a wide sampling of the community as to what the community sought, wanted and needed and how they felt that should be best accomplished and that is the process the Buffalo Grove Park District, its staff and elected officials have pursued. Mr. Green stated all governments are looking for methods and means that are unique, different, unusual, challenging and sometimes confusing on how to provide the services that are still demanded, especially in communities that are still growing and how to do that in more and more restrictive and constrictive financial atmosphere. There have been changes over that decade as a result of those needs. Some of those changes are now called riverboat casinos, business license fee increases, non profit foundation, corporate fundraising with sponsorship, ambulance fire response and emergency service fee creations, property title transfer fees, and user fees. Mr. Green noted they hope the public and the Village will understand that the staff of the Park District and the elected officials of the Park District examined, explored, considered, weighed and valued the ideas and elements of the proposals before you tonight before selecting to try to move those forward. They recognize the importance, value, beauty, scale, availability and viability of their parks and parkland and of the service responsibilities they have to their community. They know and understand that the potential for localized objection and controversy regardless of any site that may have been selected as the most appropriate or optimal for what they are pursuing tonight. They also in their review of the proposals in their public meetings came to recognize a significant opportunity to fill more than one community need. First was the chance to provide for the communication demands for a changed and changing community on site whose scale and placement of limited focus facilities assured minimal impact with no service disruption to the program and uses in the park district's charge. Second was to help meet the increased programming and operational costs. The decisions being made here have an effect on those numbers. The limitations and the requirements the Park District places on the vendor have an effect on those numbers. The decisions yet to be made on such things as the method of payments have an effect on the numbers and even the costs of these proceedings have an effect on those numbers. What is relevant is what the Park District has already indicated. The amounts are substantial and substantial enough for them to believe it warranted going through the process and the public reaction potentials that they knew would be part of that process. In 2004 the Village of Buffalo Grove through a series of long, detailed and carefully considered meetings and reviews created a new ordinance. This ordinance recognized the potential value of incorporating communication system structures into various uses and zonings including publicly held and operated property. In part, that ordinance was created recognizing that most of the largest single owned parcels in the area are owned and operated by governments of this community. In fact, the five largest tracts of land in Buffalo Grove under single control are owned by local governments, two of those by the Park District. The Park District has already testified to the criteria for special use. However, and in addition, the ordinance itself contains twenty three stipulations and criteria to be used in consideration of a special use request such as those before you tonight. These unfortunately might have been lost or confused in the shuffle of all the discussions. There has been a great deal of dialogue about the applications. In the end it is those twenty three conditions and stipulations that the Park District needed to meet or address. From the testimony and the documents submitted the Park District believes and feels very comfortable in stating that it does meet the stipulations and intents of all twenty three items for all three sites. These stipulations range from providing an inventory and a statement of need to acceptance of bonding, letters of credit and maintenance programs, to specific stipulations of removal and property restoration, to designing the towers to be "architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings and structures and land use and to the extent possible including making all reasonable efforts to minimize the visual impacts by using alternative tower designs including camouflage and stealth techniques." These stipulations also extend to requiring a six foot high fence and non-deciduous vegetation completely around the equipment structure. They also include prohibitions on non-required lights and signage and compliance with all FAA, FCA and other government agency standards and requirements. It also includes direction in minimizing separation, proliferation and even requiring co-location opportunities where they may be appropriate. This is an extensive listing and the Park District is glad that it can present proposals to the Village that it believes will help them and their constituency also provide a needed service while minimizing impact as intended and that conform to the objectives outlined in the Village ordinance. Mr. Green stated the Park District did have meetings and does have meetings on the second and fourth Monday of every month at the park district facility on Bernard Drive. They want the public to attend and the feedback. Public Comments and Questions: Ms. Julie Glass, 1975 Sheridan Road, stated she will be selling the house in summer. They know when they picked their lot that it would probably not sell for as much as many of their neighbors because it backs up to the power lines. They accepted that. She feels that T-Mobile is actually putting up these lines for the main purpose of improving service in Vernon Hills, Arlington Heights, Wheeling and Long Grove. She noted there does not seem to be any substantial evidence of complaints of service. They avoided any details about their financial stability. As far as property values they submitted a report on Wilmette which obviously is lake view property which is the only property that would go up in value over other property. She noted that the elected Park District officials should do everything in their power to help residents improve their property value instead of hurt it by bringing in a tower. She noted no one will look at her house now until this is settled. Mr. Richard Greenswag, 2124 Birchwood, stated he is representing a group of neighbors from both the Rolling Hills subdivision and Churchill Lane. He stated this is not about personalities but only about a genuine difference of opinion on the property use of our facilities. He stated at the last meeting Mr. Green was asked about the hardship required by the statute that would be overcome by granting the variance. Mr. Green stated twice that if the side lot variance was not granted they would have to put the tower in the middle of the park. What he did not say is he needed the height variance to make it viable. Secondly, Mr. Green was repeatedly asked about the value of this for the public and repeatedly focused on cell phone coverage as benefiting the public. This is not the public. The public is everyone in Buffalo Grove without regard for race, creed, national origin, religion or cell phone provider. These towers do not benefit the public. Third, a comment was made by Mr. Schwartz noting the presence of the Park District and the unfairness of the catcalls. However, he disagrees that the Park District was there. Mr. Green was here but it is his opinion that the Park District as petitioner here should come forward and present why this is a good idea. They should explain why the revenue is going to help and where it will help. They were not subject to cross-examination on anything. All that is known is that there is some undetermined amount of revenue. However, he noted that they do not have any idea of how many T-Mobile customers live in Buffalo Grove nor any idea how many relevant complaints were received that truly document bad service. We also have no idea of how much money would really be generated. The result is that we have stealth facts, promulgated by a stealth petitioner in support of installing stealth towers. Mr. Greenswag stated the installation of cell phone towers in Rolling Hills Park specifically and in all parks generally is bad public policy for a variety of reasons. Rolling Hills is a small isolated, essentially residential park which is primarily a neighborhood park used for a lot of unsupervised play by the kids in the area. The park must be kept as safe as possible so that this kind of unsupervised play can be maintained without parents having extra worries. The installation of a 90 foot tower with an outbuilding and fence will be an attraction to kids. Installing this tower here would be bad public policy on the safety issue alone. Further, T-Mobile and the Park District have not even bothered to address concerns about the safety of children in the park. Mr. Greenswag noted the other issue is one of aesthetics. He stated the Park District and T-Mobile's arguments with respect to the aesthetics are that they are not particularly important here because of the adjacent power lines. However, the mere fact that you have one blight in an area should not be used as justification to add another. In addition, there now appears to be a move nationwide to bury power lines. Everyone in the area has at least some hope that at some point these distribution towers may disappear. However, with a cell tower that involves over the air transmission and it can't ever be buried or disappear. It has also been his anecdotal observation that cell towers have a habit of multiplying. Whether we can argue the degree of aesthetic damage is not even the point. He does not believe anyone can argue that it is not at least to some degree a detriment. The effect of this detriment is lower property values. The study provided by Mr. Green regarding property values was nothing more than a historical trend in a very affluent area in the North Shore of the Chicago metropolitan area. Land values will always go up there no matter what goes there. He further specified that Mark J. Layne's license expired in September 30, 03 which was more than a year before this study was compiled. He stated he does not believe that the effect on property values is not even subject to conjecture. He noted one of his neighbors had requested an assessment reduction from Lake County based on two factors. One was because of the power lines and second was the small parking lot that is serving Rolling Hills Park. As to the power lines the board refused to grant any relief citing that the power lines are already built into his price. But they did give him a lower assessment based on the parking lot. If they said yes on a parking lot, it is not even conjecture that they will give them a lower assessment on a cell phone tower. He noted they moved here originally for the school district and the quantity and quality of the parks. Allowing such a use would not be positive and must be considered a negative. He stated the economic effect to the Village is absolutely clear. Although the Park District would argue that this would provide bottom line revenue to the Park District that would benefit everyone they do not believe this is true. Clearly there is some direct revenue from rental fees, however, this would be offset by the long term revenue loss due to lower property values. The Park District's attraction to short term cash flow at the expense of long term revenue is bad public policy. As to the Village the lower property values will necessarily result in both short term and long term revenue loss without any offset from T-Mobile. If the Village approves this their likely sacrifice of long term revenue without even short term revenue from T-Mobile is terrible public policy. Mr. Greenswag further noted zoning rules are primarily in place for two reasons; public safety and aesthetics. This is not the typical case where a party is asking for a zoning variance because they wish to install something that is a technical violation, it is borderline or perhaps brings such a huge benefit that you need to re-examine the zoning. They want to install a 90 foot cell tower in a park which flies directly in the face of the reason the zoning rules are there in the first place. This installation is dangerous to kids and surrounding homes, an eyesore and at best is revenue neutral for both the Park District and the Village. Mr. David Baruch, 612 Hackberry Court West, stated he has approximately 200 signatures from neighbors and other interested parties against the variance. The petition states, "we the undersigned are residents of Buffalo Grove who urge our leaders to act now to refuse any zoning ordinance, changes or any other allowance to erect such structures in parks adjacent to residential neighborhoods." He stated there are alternatives to this plan and one of those is to put the cell tower unto the structures that are there today. He stated they appreciate the issues that the Park District has related to revenue but there is nothing that says that Comm Ed could not pass that money to the Park District. He noted the park is safe for their children and he wants to keep it in that vein. Mr. Howard Tolsky, 1923 Sheridan Road, noted the alternative expressed for adding on to the Comm Ed towers is not a good one because they would still need their building structure. He noted the variance is requesting a setback of 16 feet instead of 180 feet from the southwest property line which is a huge variance. He noted there is probably a reason there is a law about why something like this should be 180 feet from a property line. He stated there do not seem to be any cell towers in any other parks. Further he noted that even though the Park District says people are demanding more service, the bottom line is that the referendums are getting turned down and this neighborhood should not have to pay for something that is repeatedly being turned down by voters. Ms. Maya Silver, 1963 Sheridan Road, stated this tower is literally in her back yard and she does not want to be looking at that from every room in her house. Mr. Scott Jacobson, 1903 Sheridan Road, Commissioner and Vice President of Park District Board, stated the Park District is always looking for feedback. He noted this matter has been on the Park District's agenda for a long time and no one every came to their meetings or called. He noted there was another board meeting at the Park District after the public hearing here in December at which only one person showed up who had a positive comment about the proposed cell towers. Mr. Jacobson stated the Park District is deeply concerned with the safety and welfare of children. He stated they have gone to extraordinary lengths at times to look at things from a safety standpoint. He stated there have been some comments noting things he never thought about which is why they hoped people would attend their board meetings. He noted that neither he nor the other commissioners received any phone calls and were rather surprised at the last public hearing and the number of people who came out. He stated he takes responsibility as a public official in not knowing some of the concerns of people going into the process but he also must say that a call to him would have been great. Mr. Jacobson noted that he would not want to put something into his neighborhood that would detract from his property values. He therefore called the Vernon Township assessor's office and asked if a request for reduced property value was made based on a cell tower would be granted. They emphatically stated no. Mr. Jacobson stated that if they do not do this someone else would do it. He stated his research shows that in order to have proper reception cell phone towers need to be about a mile apart. As much as we do not want these towers, they will dot the landscape just as telephone lines now dot the landscape. Mr. Jacobson noted they have done all they can to bring in revenue with grants and corporate donations. He stated they feel these towers are being requested because it is in the best interests of Buffalo Grove. They felt they could generate additional revenue to support their programs and remain the high quality type of district we have now. Vice Chairman Samuels noted the purpose of this section of the meeting is for the public to make comments and observations in support or opposition to the petition. Mr. Jacobson stated the bottom line is that the Park District is doing what they think is in the best interests of the public. They have five commissioners on the board who have all agreed to this proposal. They had not heard any dissenting views whatsoever from the public until these meetings occurred. Mr. Raysa suggested that since it is 11:00 p.m., it may be necessary to continue the public hearing to a future date if a large number of people still want to make comments. He asked if it could be determined that only the six people currently in line at the microphone wanted to speak and how much time each person would need for their respective comments. Vice Chairman Samuels stated that people need to be allowed to say whatever they came to say and it would be appropriate to continue the hearing, if there would be considerable additional comments. He asked for a show of hands from persons in attendance concerning who wanted to make comments. Based on the count of approximately eight persons, Vice Chairman Samuels indicated that hearing would be extended this evening to complete the public questions and comments. Mr. Jay Silver, 1963 Sheridan Road, stated at the last meeting someone spoke of different options that might be available other than the stealth tower. He asked if there might be such other options and this should be explored before we change the landscape. Mr. Jack Schmerer, 1320 Devonshire, stated he is president of the Friends of the Park Foundation and the foundation and he are in favor of the cell towers because it is good for all of Buffalo Grove. It would be a significant source of revenue that will help offset capital improvements in our parks and perhaps help to add a few more parks in the future. He noted there does not appear to be any conclusive evidence that one cell tower, blended in with the already existing power lines will have any effect on this neighborhood. He noted he would never support something that would be a detriment to any part of the community and he knows the Park District feels the same way. This proposal was carefully reviewed by the Park District board before deciding to move forward. We have a chance to add to our parks without adding any burden to our taxes or our residents. Ms. Alina Groth noted she has T-Mobile service now and she honestly never has service difficulty in and around her home in Rolling Hills. However, the area in Long Grove immediately west of Rolling Hills where she works does give her service interruptions. She stated she strongly believes that the area of Buffalo Grove where she lives does not need this tower. However, Long Grove residents will benefit from this tower and T-Mobile should place this tower in Long Grove to benefit those residents. She stated it is not right that her children's safety, her property values and her view should be compromised for T-Mobile to increase service for anyone, let alone a Village other than Buffalo Grove. She asked that T-Mobile explore the other options proposed and asked that the Commission vote against the cell tower. Ms. Ellen Wiczer, 608 Hackberry Court West, stated that there is a basic difference in what she wants from a park and what the Park District wants. Parks are intended to be safe recreational environments for families. She noted she likes the power towers because it is guaranteed open space. There is an incredible number of animals who transverse the area underneath the power lines. The Park District is asking to take a piece of that open space away, but at what price? Mr. Bob Giometti, 2128 Birchwood Lane, stated the Park District must have expected this kind of response from the public and for that reason the Park District should have done a better job of notifying the people most affected earlier. He stated micro cells that are 30-40 feet high would be perfect to fill in weak spots such as Long Grove. He noted that the comment by Mr. Jacobson that cell towers are needed about one mile apart is false. Mr. Giometti noted the cellular industry is under great change now. Many mergers are occurring and T-Mobile may merge with someone else as they are one of the smaller players now. The economics of the cellular network is that there is high overhead to be paid which will make the smaller carriers like T-Mobile much more difficult to compete on a cost basis. As these mergers occur, the need for cell towers will be reduced. He noted new technology is being worked on that will improve coverage without the need of adding any cell towers. Ms. Eileen Katz, 897 Thornton Lane, noted that last year the Village Trustees had a proposal in front of them from another cellular company to place cell towers at the area by Buffalo Grove Road and Aptakisic Road where there are existing Comm Ed lines and they voted not to refer it over to the Plan Commission because it was too close to residential areas and the Village of Buffalo Grove was not interested in serving Long Grove residents' needs for cellular service. She also asked to put the Mission Statement of the Buffalo Grove Park District and the Friends of the Park Foundation into the record. She stated she is with a large residential brokerage company for the past 24 years and the assessor's office determines assessed valuation for the purposes of taxation. The real determination of property value is the market place and the buyer and the buyer dictates market value and that market value is determined by their perception of what is a negative in the market place. Ms. Karen Larsen Meadows, 1279 Farnsworth, she is the Park District resident and has served the board for the last 24 years. She stated that the complexities of the current government in terms of public hearings have been difficult for all. It has been difficult for the entire park board to not be part of the testimony process but they have had meetings where they could have answered a lot of the questions. She noted the Park District would never hurt landscaping. She read a letter into the record from Don Hedlund stating..."the Village residents have had to deal with waiting lists and obstacles at times in dealing with the Park District due to tax caps they have had to contend with. The population keeps increasing and demanding more services but does not want to pass a referendum. Thus the Park District has looked into alternative measures for bringing in revenue to enhance the services provided and create new ones requested by residents. One example is the fitness center which is funded by memberships. The cell tower is another as no expenses would occur for the district but a steady stream of revenue would be obtained." Ms. Meadows noted the contract for the Park District would certainly contain provisions for removal of the tower if it was no longer viable. She noted they have a strong history of public/private partnerships, contracts that work and a triple A rating in the financial world. She noted they have done that through meticulous attention to detail. If they do not know how to do something they go to a professional. The alternative to non-passage of this petition is a lack of growth in the Park District. She noted they have been as creative as possible in creating this stream of revenue. She noted they have considered aesthetics as best they could and also the safety issues. She stated everything would be done to protect kids and no proposal would be made to jeopardize their safety. Ms. Rita Fisher, 1962 Sheridan, noted that a couple of people from the Park District have spoken today and have stated that public opinion counts. She noted that they have just given the commission 200 signatures against this tower. There she asked how public opinion counts. Vice Chairman Samuels closed the public hearing concerning Rolling Hills North Park at 11:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Samuels closed the public hearings concerning Bison Park and Busch Grove Community Park at 11:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Samuels noted that the Commission would next open the regular meeting and determine if the regular meeting should be continued to another evening or if the discussion on each petition and the respective recommendations should be finished tonight. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: MICHAEL SAMUELS, Vice Chairman Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/05/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 5, 2005 Buffalo Grove Park District, Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Busch Grove Park, 801 McHenry Road— Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Rolling Hills North Park, 1951 Sheridan Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Vice Chairman Samuels called the meeting to order at 11:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Planner Vice Chairman Samuels asked for a sense from the Commission as to whether or not to continue the regular meeting to another evening or if everything should be finished tonight. Vice Chairman Samuels called for a polling. The polling was as follows: To finish the meeting tonight: Smith, Khan, Cohn To continue the meeting to another evening: Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Stark, Teplinsky The polling was 4-3 to continue the regular meeting. Mr. Pfeil said that February 2, 2005 is an available date for the continued meeting. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commission Teplinsky to continue the meeting to February 2, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 8 to 0. Vice Chairman Samuels closed the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, FAY RUBIN, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: MICHAEL SAMUELS, Vice Chair