[ Board of Adjustment -- Regular Meeting] [00:00:09] OKAY. IT IS NOW 6:30 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 13. WE WILL CALL THE CITY OF ROWLETT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING TO ORDER. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. THE CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION ARE CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADORNMENT. I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WE HAVE A PROCESS OF PUBLIC INPUT. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZEN INPUT FORM ON THE CITY WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PRIOR TO THE START OF MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AT THIS TIME WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CITIZENS' INPUT, WITH THREE MINUTES LIMITED TIME COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD DURING CITIZENS' INPUT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE CITIZENS' INPUT? NO? OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER THREE A, CONSIDER APPROVAL FROM THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON OCTOBER 9, 2024. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? >> MOTION TO ACCEPT. >> TO BE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. WE SHOULD VOTE. >> WHAT IS YOUR VOTE? >> IT IS A YES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND SAY THE MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. BUT BEFORE WE OPEN THE 4A SESSION, A BOARD MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO PUT INTO RECORD. >> MY NAME IS STANLEY POLLARD. ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, ITEM 4A THAT IS BEFORE THE BODY OF JUNE 12, 2024, FIVE MONTHS, I HAVE RECUSED MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE APPLICANTS' INVOLVED PARTY OR PARTIES. THE APPLICANT'S INVOLVD PARTNER, T-MOBILE/METRO PCS I HAVE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF T-MOBILE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND NEVER WORKED OR RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FROM T-MOBILE AND/OR METRO PCS, OR MY WIFE NOR CHILDREN, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. MY WIFE AND CHILDREN OWN NO STOCK OR OWNERSHIP IN T-MOBILE OR METRO PCS. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THIS DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE APPLICANT'S INVOLVED PARTNER AT&T, I HAVE NEVER WORKED OR RECEIVED COMPENSATION FROM AT&T, NOR HAS MY WIFE NOR CHILDREN, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I AND MY WIFE WERE STOCKHOLDERS OF AT&T AND I WAS ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE STOCK THAT WE OWNED DID CAUSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PER TEXAS STATE LAW. WE SOLD AND DIVESTED OURSELVES OF THE AT&T STOCK ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024, SO I DO NOT SEE THAT I HAVE A CURRENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A POSSIBLE INTERESTED PARTY IS VERIZON. I HAVE NEVER WORKED NOR RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FROM VERIZON, NOR HAS MY WIFE NOR CHILDREN TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I AM HOWEVER A STOCKHOLDER OF VERIZON. THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED ME THAT SINCE VERIZON WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER [00:05:05] IT DID NOT RISE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. TO MY KNOWLEDGE VERIZON HAS NOT ASSOCIATED ITSELF INTO THE MATTER OF ITEM 4A AND HAS HAD OVER FIVE MONTHS TO DO SO. I DO NOT SEE THAT I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IVORY CREWS MYSELF IN THE ITEM TO THE PAST DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR POSSIBLE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I DO NOT SEE THAT I CURRENTLY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BUT WILL YIELD AND DO NOT BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY OR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE, AND/OR THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR OPINION. I HAVE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO THE CHAIRMAN. I HAVE ONE THAT WOULD GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY REPRESENTATIVE. IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO. >> THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN UP ITEM 4A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY DAVID PREJEAN, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS DAVID E. AND TERESA L. GEORGE, FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 77-302.B.1.D(9)(G) OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS FROM 41.25 FEET TO 29.35 FEET ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SF-9, DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7901 SCHRADE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 230 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARTHA LANE AND SCHRADE ROAD, BEING PART OF THE S A & M G RR ABSTRACT 1416 PAGE 765 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS. I WILL GO AHEAD AND PRESENT THIS ONE. SOME QUICK BACKGROUND, THIS REQUEST WAS INITIALLY CONSIDERED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2024. BUT IT FAILED TO GAIN THE REQUIRED FOUR VOTES OF APPROVAL. ON OCTOBER 9, 2024 IT WAS GRANTED A REHEARING FROM THE BOARD AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THIS BEFORE YOU AGAIN. A QUICK BACKGROUND, THE SUBJECT SITE IS S F9 DISTRICT. IT IS 2.69 ACRES AS SHOWN ON THE SIDE. SOME MORE BACKGROUND , ON SEPTEMBER OF 1994, AT&T SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WITH MARTHA LANE TO CREATE A SPACE ON THE COUNCILMEMBERS TOWER. METRO PCS IN 2005 ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT AND DECEMBER 26 OF 2015 THE WATER TANK WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN A TORNADO AND LATER DEMOLISHED, PROMPTING AT&T TO PUT UP TEMPORARY CELL ON MEALS -- WHEELS NEARBY. THAT IS CURRENTLY UP RIGHT THERE. SO THE REQUEST ALLOW FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN A SINGLE-FAMILY SF 9, BUT SPECIAL USE PERMITS. ALL TOWERS AND STRUCTURES MUST BE SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINES OF ANY ADJACENT USE , HOWEVER THERE IS EXCEPTION IF THE TOWER HAS AN ENGINEERING BREAKER COLLAPSE. IN THAT CASE A SETBACK WOULD BE 110% OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE BREAKPOINT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER. THE TOWER BEING REQUESTED IS 75 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE BREAKPOINT IS AT 37.5 FEET, WHICH WOULD THEN RESULT IN A 41.25 SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS TO REDUCE THE SETBACK. ESSENTIALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE, 41.25 FEET, TO 29.35 FEET ON THE NORTH FLIGHT. SO JUST FOR DISCUSSION, THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK IS CONSIDERED THE DISTANCE OF ANY COLLAPSE SECTION IN ORDER TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT UPON. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DAMAGE TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. PUBLIC STREETS. OR UTILITY GROUND SERVICES. AND ANY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. INAUDIBLE ] FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ENCROACH ABOUT 11.9 FEET. SO IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE, THE CODE ORDINANCE THAT AVOIDS ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS. ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY, THE HARDSHIP MUST BE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, ARISING FROM ANY TOPOGRAPHICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL, PHYSICAL, FEATURES OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT BE OWNER OR OCCUPANT. A VARIANCE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FROM SETBACKS. IN [00:10:03] THIS CASE THE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IF CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF GRANTED THE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL BOARD MAY RECOMMEND MODIFICATIONS IN THE FINAL ACTION MAY NOT MIRROR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. WE DID PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ON NOVEMBER 1, 2024. WE DID RECEIVE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET AND THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET. I THINK THAT IS A REPEAT. SO, IN TERMS OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IT IS FOR DISAPPROVAL, THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 41.25 FEET, TO 29.35 FEET ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. IT WOULD ENCROACH INTO CITY PROPERTY IN THE NORTH AND WE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THAT. I AM OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION TONIGHT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE CELL PHONE TOWER ORIGINALLY WAS AT. BUT THAT IS AN OLD AREA FROM 2015, JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE OLD TOWER WAS ON TOP. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS ON TOP OF THE WATER TOWER. >> THAT IS THE CURRENT LEASE RIGHT NOW. SO THAT IS AN OLD AREA THAT WAS PROVIDED AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT WAS COMPARED TO WHERE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. >> >> CORRECT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT IS THE CITY FEATURED DOING WITH THE CITY PROPERTY, SINCE THE WATER TANK IS GONE? WHAT IS THE FUTURE USE? >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT SPECIFICALLY THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS INTERNALLY, SPECIFIC TO THE ITEM AND HOW WE WOULD TAKE THE APPROACH FOR RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL BECAUSE THERE IS ANY SORT OF ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FALL ZONE, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT, IT WOULD BE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION FOR US. WE DO NOT HAVE A PLAN IN TERMS OF WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE BUT WE CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT THE COUNCIL'S GOAL WOULD BE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SITE. THAT IS THE SOLE REASON FOR RECORDATION OF DISAPPROVAL, BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO ON THE SITE IN THE FUTURE AND CITY COUNCIL WOULD DECIDE THAT AT SOME POINT. >> IN YOUR FALL ZONE THERE AND THE REASON FOR THE SETBACK IS DUE TO THE CITY PROPERTY ONLY? OR DOES THAT INVOLVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE NEIGHBORS? IF THEY PUT UP, IF THEY GOT THE REQUEST APPROVED AND PUT UP THEIR ANTENNA, AND SHOULD IT FALL AND BREAK , YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FALL ZONE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT CAN POTENTIALLY GO THAT WAY. >> ENCROACHMENT IS ONLY INTO CITY PROPERTIES AND NOT OTHER PROPERTIES. >> IT IS NOT INTO THE TRAILERS IN THE FALL ZONE? >> NOT BASED ON THE FALLS ON THE PROVIDED AND WHERE THE TRAILERS ARE AT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THE TRACTOR THE NORTH, WHAT IS IT CURRENTLY ZONED AS? AND WHAT IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON IT? AND WHAT THAT FALL ZONE FALL WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK? >> I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK ON THE ZONING AND I BELIEVE IT IS A RESIDENTIAL. SO SAY IF YOU HAD AN ACCESSORIES STRUCTURE THERE, YES. THE CLOSEST WOULD BE THREE FEET. >> >> THIS IS WHERE THE WATER TOWER WAS. THE OLD PROPERTY LINE. SETBACK AT THREE? >> IF YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE YOU CAN TECHNICALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT CLOSE. IT JUST DEPENDS WHAT YOU PUT ON THERE. >> OKAY. THAT IS IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS [00:15:01] MASON GRIFFIN AND I RESIDE AT 4908 -- DRIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS. THANK YOU AGAIN. I KNOW YOU ARE PROBABLY SICK OF ME COMING UP HERE AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS. I WILL AVOID GOING TO THE FULL PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE IS WELL AWARE OF WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE. I SHOULD POINT OUT THE INITIAL PROPOSAL THAT THE APPLICANT PUT FORWARD HAD THE FALL AREA FALL WITHIN THE AREA THAT WAS DEVELOPABLE TO THE NORTH. IN OTHER WORDS, CROSSING THE SETBACK THAT YOU MENTIONED. THAT WAS DENIED. WE UNDERSTOOD AND TOOK THAT FEEDBACK OVER THE SUMMER AND REVISED THE APPLICATION, SHRUNK THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER AS MUCH AS WE COULD, MOVED THE LOCATION SLIGHTLY. ALL WITH THE PURPOSE THAT THE BRAKE LINE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK THAT APPLIES TO THAT LOT TO THE NORTH. THERE MIGHT BE ADJACENT STRUCTURES THAT MIGHT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THERE BUT NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. THAT APPLIES TO THAT TRACT. AND SAID THAT WAS ENTIRELY, THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH WE DETERMINED THE HEIGHT THAT WE WOULD USE AND THE LOCATION, EXACT AND PRECISE LOCATION. SO THAT MADE THE BREAK IN THE FALL WOULD FALL ENTIRELY WITHIN THAT SETBACK. THE GOAL BEING TO NOT INTERFERE WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT TRACT. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE. JUST SOME REMINDERS ABOUT THE APPLICATION, TOWERS ON THIS PROPERTY IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, WHETHER A WATER TOWER OR TEMPORARY TOWER THAT IS BEEN PLACED FOR ALL THIS TIME HAVE BEEN ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE AT LEAST 1985, AS FAR BACK AS I CAN TELL. THE WATER TOWER BEING THERE IN AT LEAST 1995 WAS LIKELY THERE BEFORE. GOOGLE EARTH TELLS ME THERE WAS A WATER TANK THERE IN 1985. THE ANTENNAS WERE NOT INSTALLED UNTIL ADT BECAME A TENANT ON THE TOWER BUT IT HAS BEEN WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR 40 YEARS AT THIS POINT. SO THE GOAL AGAIN IS NOT TO INSTALL NEW TOWERS BUT INSTALL, REPLACE THE TWO TEMPORARY TOWERS THAT HAVE BEEN UP THERE FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AND REPLACE THEM WITH A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT IS SOMEWHAT MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN THE TWO TEMPORARY TOWERS THAT SIT THERE NOW. AND AVOID THE SITUATION WHERE A GAP OF COVERAGE IS CREATED IN THIS PART OF THE PENINSULA. AGAIN, SOME HISTORY. WE HAVE PROVIDED A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 4, OF THIS YEAR IN YOUR PACKET. I BELIEVE IT IS 34 AND 37 THAT OUTLINE THE SIX YEARS OF EFFORTS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING TOWERS WITH A NEW TOWER ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY. ONLY AFTER WORKING ON PROPOSALS FOR TWO DIFFERENT FIRE STATION LOCATIONS, AT BLUEBONNET PARK AND AT THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE WATER TOWER OVER A SPAN OF SIX YEARS, THE APPLICANT DID MOVE ON TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. WE HAVE TRIED AS BEST AS WE COULD TO FIND A WAY THAT WORKED ON CITY PROPERTY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS OPTIMAL FOR EVERYONE. AT SOME POINT WE HAVE JUST GOT TO THROW UP OUR HANDS AND SAY WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REPLACE THE TOWERS. THE CITY HAS BEEN PRESSURING AT&T MOBILE TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY TOWERS. AGAIN, LIMITED IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS A TOTAL OF ABOUT 440 SQUARE FEET OF IMPACT ZONE, ALL ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO IMPACT ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURS ON THAT TRACT. WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT AT PRIOR MEETINGS THE DEMONSTRATED NEED OF COVERAGE FOR AT&T, T-MOBILE, AND THAT IS AT THIS LOCATION AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE REMOVAL WOULD BE ON THE CUSTOMERS OF THOSE TWO CARRIERS WITHIN THIS AREA. THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE EMERGENCY 911 SYSTEM THAT THE CITY HAS, IN ADDITION TO JUST CARRYING ON WITH LIFE AND COMMERCE AND BUSINESS AS WE ALL DO AND HAVE BECOME SO RELIANT ON THESE THINGS. TO ADDRESS THE POINT THAT THIS IS A VARIANCE, THE BOARD HAS ALLOWED TO GRANT A VARIANCE WHEN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND AS I THINK I DISCUSSED AT NOT THE MOST RECENT MEETING BUT THE MEETING PRIOR TO THAT, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE CITY OF ROWLETT ORDINANCE, THERE IS A STATE OF PURPOSE AND WE WENT THROUGH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE WE DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETING AND HOW THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL THOSE PURPOSES. WE FEEL THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS BEING OBSERVED AND WE ARE JUST TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO TOWERS. WILL HAVE THE LEAST [00:20:02] IMPACT POSSIBLE WITHIN THE AREA TO ADDRESS THE COVERAGE NEED. BOBBY WELLS HAS BEEN A RADIOFREQUENCY ENGINEER FOR AT&T FOR 25 YEARS. HE IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE MORE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THIS PROPOSAL. I WILL BRING BOBBY UP AT THIS POINT AND I AM CERTAINLY AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, WHEN WE GET TO THAT. >> HOW ARE YOU DOING? MY NAME IS BOBBY WELLS AND I WORK FOR AT&T. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GO OVER A COUPLE THINGS. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BUILD A NEW TOWER, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO REPLACE AND KEEP THE COVERAGE WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD SO EVERYBODY'S LIFE -- YOU GET SO DEPENDING ON CELL PHONES FOR CHECKING YOUR CAMERAS AT HOME, LETTING YOUR KIDS IN AND IF YOU HAVE A SMART HOUSE YOU CAN UNLOCK YOUR HOUSE. IF THERE IS A STORM IN YOUR OUT AND WANT TO CHECK THE RADAR, THESE ARE SERVICES THAT REQUIRE A LOT OF BANDWIDTH. SO IF WE REMOVE THE TOWER, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND CIPHER THROUGH? OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. ALL RIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE QUICK, GET DOWN TO THE GUTS AND PLOT HERE. OH NO. I BROKE IT. I THOUGHT I DID ANYWAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. IF WE REMOVE THE TOWER THERE STILL WILL BE SIGNALED IN THE AREA AND YOUR PHONE WOULD MOST LIKELY STILL WORK TO SOME DEGREE. YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE A TEXT MESSAGE AND A CALL HERE OR THERE BUT IT WILL OPEN UP SPOTS WHERE THIS SITE NOW CAN SERVE DOMINANTLY THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. WHEN WE REMOVE IT YOU WILL HAVE FOUR OR FIVE SITES THAT ARE SERVING AT A LOWER SIGNAL STRENGTH BUT ALL EQUAL. WHEN YOU CREATE LIKE A SOUP AND DON'T HAVE ANY DOMINANT SERVER AND YOU END UP HAVING THE THROUGHPUT, YOU WILL DECREASE AND HAVE A MUCH WORSE MODULATION SCHEME. THE RESOURCE BLOCKS AFTER THEN BE USED TO PROTECT THE SIGNAL AND ALL THAT RESULT IN A SLOWER , ALLOWING A TEXT TO GO THROUGH BUT NOT VIDEO. YOU WILL BE ON YOUR PHONE TRYING TO CHECK THE RADAR AND IT WILL BUFFER AND BUFFER. THINGS LIKE THAT. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE WILL BE AN ENTIRE SWATH OF THE AREA THAT WILL HAVE NO SERVICE AT ALL BUT YOU WILL LOSE THOSE HIGHER THROUGHPUT BY G, THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE COME TO RELY ON. I CHECK TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE AT MY DOOR, I CHECKED THE RADAR, AT THE PARK WITH THE KIDS WANTING TO CHECK THE BALLGAME, THINGS YOU HAVE BECOME USED TO. ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, CREATING HOLES. IS UP AND DOWN OR DO YOU KNOW? OKAY. I DO NOT THINK THAT ONE IS IN HERE THOUGH. THAT WILL END UP HAPPENING. YOU WILL END UP CREATING SPOTS WHERE YOU JUST DO NOT HAVE GOOD SERVICE ANYMORE AND YOU WILL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO MAKE A TEXT MESSAGE AND LIKELY BE ABLE TO MAKE A CALL, BUT THE THINGS THAT YOU REALLY REQUIRE OR COME TO RELY ON LIKE CHECKING ANY KIND OF CAMERAS, THROUGHPUT, TRYING TO DOWNLOAD ANY HEAVY, HIGH MEGABYTE OR GIGABYTE SERVICE WILL REALLY COME TO A STALL. WE USE OUR SYSTEM OR NETWORK FOR FIRST NET. THAT IS KIND OF A SAFETY. I DO NOT KNOW IF ROWLETT IS A CUSTOMER FOR FIRST NET, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER SERVICES, A LOT OF FIRST NET CUSTOMERS THAT MAY END UP WORKING IN THE AREA DURING A NATURAL DISASTER LIKE THE TORNADOES OR ANYTHING ELSE. WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE THE SERVICE AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE AND RETAIN THE SERVICE WE HAVE. YOU USERS KIND OF EXPECT ON A DAY-TO-DAY USE, SORRY I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL SPEAKER BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE THAT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES SIR? >> OKAY, SO YOU HEARD THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE FOR CITY STAFF. AND THE BIGGEST THING IS BECAUSE WE ARE ASKING TO DO SETBACKS TONIGHT , FALL ZONE, IF THIS POLL BREAKS FOR WHATEVER REASON, WILL IT IMPACT IN THE FALL ZONE ANTICIPATED ANY STRUCTURES THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE? >> DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT AS FAR AS WHICH WAY? I THINK WE ARE CLEAR ON THE SOUTH. >> GREAT QUESTION AND I SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THAT IN MY PRESENTATION. THE CIRCLE THAT WAS CREATED, THE FALL ZONE AVOIDS IMPACT WITH ANY OF THE RESIDENCES ON THE TRACT WHERE THE TOWER WILL BE. THE ONLY POTENTIAL IMPACT WOULD BE IF THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL INSULAR STRUCTURES BUILT WITHIN THE TRACT TO THE NORTH, WITHIN THE [00:25:02] 10 FOOT SETBACK. WHICH AGAIN I SHOULD NOT BE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. BUT, SO THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT TO ANY STRUCTURES, EXISTING STRUCTURES, THE FALL ZONE HAD BEEN DESIGNED TO AVOID THAT HAPPENING. >> OKAY. AND SINCE I WAS NOT PART OF THAT DISCUSSION IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IN SEPTEMBER OF 1994 YOU PUT UP THE ANTENNA UP ON THE WATER TANK AT THE REQUEST OR BEHEST OF THE CITY. AND I WILL MAKE A COMMENT THERE, THE CITY WAS AT THAT TIME AND THEREAFTER WANTING AND PUSHING FOR CELL PHONE COMPANIES TO PUT THEIR TOWERS ON THE WATER TANK. REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT WAS IN THE TOWN. SO NOW WE HAVE THE TORNADO HIT AND THAT WAS IN 2015. IT TEARS UP THE WATER TAKE ENOUGH THAT IT BUCKLES THE FEET, THE STRUCTURE HAS TO COME DOWN FOR SAFETY REASONS. YOU ALL WERE ALLOWED TO PUT THE CURRENT TRUCKS OUT THERE WITH TEMPORARY POLES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE APPROXIMATELY 2015, 2016. AND SO A COMMENT FOR THE RESIDENTS OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW ANY RESIDENTS WITHIN THIS POLL OR ANTENNA, AND THE MOBILE HOMES WERE OWNED BY -- AT THE TIME, I BELIEVE. THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT IF I MOVE IN, I REALIZE WHAT IS AROUND ME. AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN. ESPECIALLY FOR A BIG POLE OR SOMETHING, AND IT MIGHT FALL. WITH THAT SAID THE CITY STILL HAS VACANT PROPERTY. THE CITY HAS NOT DECIDED WHAT IT WANTS TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY. YET THE FALL ZONE COULD BE ONTO THAT PROPERTY AND LIMITING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THEY WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY OFF FOR. WHETHER RESIDENTIAL OR THE CITY WANTS TO PUT A STRUCTURE IN ON ITS OWN. A FIRE STATION, WHATEVER. IT WON'T BE A FIRE STATION BECAUSE OF THE NEW ONE. BUT COMMUNICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND WE COULD PUT A BUILDING THAT NEEDS. SO, IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY THAT YOU CAN MOVE THIS TO WHERE THE FALL ZONE IS NOT ENCROACHING ON ANYONE? GET THE PROPERTY, PUT IT IN THERE SO YOU ARE INSULATED FROM ANYBODY BEING CLOSE TO YOU, IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THIS. >> I CANNOT SPEAK TO BUYING THE CITY PROPERTY, I NOTE THE TWO CARRIERS HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS TO FIND A SOLUTION IN TERMS OF A LEASE. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION REGARDING IF THERE IS ANYWHERE ELSE WE CAN MOVE IT ON THE EXISTING TRACT, THE ANSWER UNFORTUNATELY IS NO. WE HAVE MOVED IT AS FAR AS WE CAN WITHOUT ENDANGERING THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE ON THE EXISTING TRACT. IF I COULD BRING UP THE CITY'S PRESENTATION, THEY HAVE A GREAT >> THIS SHOWS THAT AGAIN THE FALL ZONE IS THE RED CIRCLE. AND UC TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AND TO THE WEST, VARIOUS STRUCTURES TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST, MAINLY TO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST AND SOUTH SOUTHWEST ARE MAINLY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. WE MOVED THE CIRCLE ABOUT AS CLOSE AS WE REASONABLY CAN TO AVOID THE FALL ZONE. THE FALL ZONE POTENTIALLY IMPACTING RESIDENCES. YOU ARE CORRECT, IT IS WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK TO THE NORTH. BUT WE DO NOT SEE THAT AS IMPAIRING DEVELOPMENT [00:30:05] FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, IT IS WITHIN THE SETBACK. TWO, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ENCROACHMENT LIKE A SIGN STICKING OVER A PROPERTY LINE. WE ARE TALKING A THEORETICAL ENCROACHMENT . IF THE TOWER WERE TO FALL, IF THE TOWER WERE TO FALL WITHIN A WHATEVER THAT IS, 30 DEGREE WINDOW, 40 DEGREES WINDOW IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH. AND IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE SOME ANCILLARY STRUCTURE THAT IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE SETBACK. WE ARE TALKING A VERY VERY SMALL UNIVERSE OF POSSIBILITIES THAT EXISTS . JUST A PERSONAL ANECDOTE, I LIVE IN DALLAS AND I MOVED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO BECAUSE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WE WERE IN THE PATH OF THE 2019 TORNADO AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THE MOST EXCITING THING THAT OUR KIDS EXPERIENCED IN THEIR SCHOOL YEAR AND THEN MARCH 2020 HAPPENED. SO I HAVE BEEN A FIRST-HAND WITNESS TO THE IMPACTS OF THESE TORNADOES AND IF ANYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH THE HOME DEPOT AT FOREST AND BETWEEN GREENVILLE AND 75, ABOUT THE ONLY THING THAT WAS NOT DESTROYED AND THAT TORNADO WAS THE CELL PHONE TOWERS. THE HOME DEPOT WAS WRECKED, STUFF WAS THROWN EVERYWHERE. THAT IS NO GUARANTEE BUT THERE IS NOT A WEATHER STORM OR WEATHER EVENT THAT COULD KNOCK THIS THING OVER. BUT THESE THINGS OFTEN ARE THE ONLY THINGS LEFT STANDING AFTER THIS KIND OF NATURAL DISASTER. LATTICE TOWERS TEND TO HAVE PROBLEMS BECAUSE SHEETS OF MATERIAL GET BLOWN UP AGAINST THEM AND CREATE A SALE EFFECT. THEY GET PUSHED OVER. THE POLES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE JUST DO NOT FALL. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THESE SO THAT EMERGENCY SERVICES HAVE A COMMUNICATION NETWORK IN THE EVENT OF A NATURAL DISASTER. SO, WE VIEW THIS AS A VERY, VERY NARROW UNIVERSE OF RISK. BY HAVING THIS FALL ZONE ENCROACH WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO THE NORTH. BECAUSE OF THE VERY NARROW SPECIFIC SERIES OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR THERE TO BE AN IMPACT. AGAIN, IF THERE WERE TO BE A PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, IT WOULD NOT BE LIKE A BILLBOARD STICKING OUT OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT IS OBVIOUS TO THEM ABOUT WHY IT WOULD IMPACT MY DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING THAT SITS SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND AGAIN IS DESIGNED TO FALL WITHIN THE SAME SETBACK. I APOLOGIZE. I RAMBLED. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR IS THERE A PART I NEED TO IMPRESS? >> YES. THANK YOU. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? >> YES. PLEASE. TO BE CLEAR THERE WAS NO MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS WHEN I VOTED TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL MEETING. THE PREVIOUS SALE INTENT -- ANTENNAS WITH THE CITY DERIVED REVENUE FROM THE LEASING OF THOSE TOWERS, I HAVE ASKED MANY TIMES WHY OTHER SITES IN THE CITY WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE. I NEVER GOT AN ANSWER. WHAT HAPPENED? WITHIN A MILE OF THIS OLD TOWER, THE REQUESTED NEW TOWEL -- TOWER LOCATION, PRIVATE PROPERTY WERE SOMEONE WOULD BE DERIVING REVENUE FROM THE LEASE, I SPENT FIVE HOURS ON THIS TODAY. IT WAS AMAZING, VERTICAL LEASE, VERTICAL CONSULTING, CONSULTING ON VERTICAL LEASING, GETTING YOUR BEST LAND FOR CELL TOWERS. IT AMAZED ME ON HOW BIG THE INDUSTRY IS RELEASING CELL PHONE TOWERS. BUT AT&T AS BEST AS I COULD TELL IS RIGHT THERE ON THE WATER TOWER RIGHT THERE LESS THAN A MILE AWAY. THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, THE POLICE STATION, THE NEW TOWER THERE IS NOBODY ON THAT RIGHT NOW BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHY THERE COULD NOT BE. AROUND THE CITY, WITHIN A MILE OF THAT LOCATION THERE ARE FOUR TOWERS WITHIN A MILE OF THAT LOCATION. AND YOU KNOW, THE COVERAGE IS, I DO NOT SEE IT. I WORK WITH THE VOLUNTEER POLICE ON THE TORNADO. OUR CELL PHONE SYSTEM WAS STILL WORKING AND WAS NOT DOWN. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOUR ENGINEER. WAS THE TOWER, WAS AT A 5G TOWER BEFORE ON THE WATER TANKS OR WAS IT STILL THREE OR FOUR? >> WHAT WAS THAT YOUR? >> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 4G. >> AND IT HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 5G? >> WE WOULD ADD THE RADIOS FOR SURE. [00:35:09] >> YOU ARE SAYING YOU WOULD INSTALL 4G? >> WE WOULD INSTALL 4G BUT WE WOULD HAVE 5G RADIOS. WHATEVER EQUIPMENT IS THE LATEST AND GREATEST WITH ANY TOWER THAT WE BUILD, FOR SURE. >> MY CONCERN IS THAT PROPERTY IS A TRAILER PARK, MOBILE HOME PARK. THERE WERE MOBILE HOMES, THERE WAS A MOBILE HOME SITTING AT THE TIME OF THE TORNADO, AS I HAVE SEEN FROM PICTURES, WHERE THE TOWER WILL BE NOW. THERE IS STILL ONE MOBILE HOME SITTING JUST TO THE WEST ON A NARROW STRIP OUTSIDE THE FALL ZONE. AND THOSE FALL CALCULATIONS, IF THEY ARE OFF BY 10 OR 15 FEET, THE TWO HOMES IN THE BOTTOM CORNER RIGHT THERE AT ABOUT 7:00 IN THE 5:00 POSITION OF THE PICTURE, IF IT IS OFF 10 OR 15 FEET ON THE CALCULATION OR THE WIND IS BLOWING HARDER THAN YOU EXPECT, THE HOMES WILL GET HIT BY THAT TOWER. RIGHT? OKAY YOU HAVE GOT YOUR CALCULATIONS. SO I JUST -- >> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS AS FAR AS THE SITES. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ON THE WATER TOWERS IN OUR CLOSEST WOULD BE AT 30, THE INTERSECTION OF DOWEL ROCK AT THE GAS STATION, ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. AND THE CLOSEST SITE TO THE NORTH IS NORTH OF 66. >> AND THE CELL LOCATOR I WAS LOOKING AT IT THERE. AND YOU HAVE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 190, ALL WITHIN A MILE, MILE AND A HALF, LESS THAN A MILE AWAY. IF YOU TAKE GOOGLE MAPS AND LAYOUT AND PUT YOUR POINTERS -- MY THING IS, THERE IS OPTIONS. THIS IS MORE OF A CONVENIENCE. IN MY OPINION. THEN NECESSARY. >> IF WE CANNOT GET THIS APPROVED WE WILL PROBABLY JUST NOT BE ABLE TO SERVICE THIS AREA. WE HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING FOR EIGHT YEARS. AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO RELOCATE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING NOW. >> NOT TO ARGUE BUT HOW DOES VERIZON SERVICE THOSE CUSTOMERS WHEN NOT ON THIS TOWER? AND YOU CANNOT DO IT? >> THEY ARE PROBABLY ON ANOTHER TOWER, I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHERE THEIR TOWERS ARE. MY GUESS IS MAYBE THEY ARE A LITTLE CLOSER. >> I BELIEVE VERIZON IS ON THE -- TOWER AND THE CITY WATER TOWER, WHEN I WAS LOOKING ONLINE . >> I AM NOT 100% FAMILIAR. >> I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE. MY WHOLE THING IS -- >> BUT THIS IS OUR ONLY TOWER ON THE WHOLE PENINSULA, FROM 66 ALL THE WAY TO 30. IT IS A BIG AREA IT COVERS AND -- >> THAT IS TWO MILES. >> BUT NOW FOR A CELL SITE, THE AVERAGE SITE COVERS HALF A MILE TO THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE IN AN INTENSE AREA. >> SOME CARRIERS HAVE FOUR FOR THE ENTIRE TOWN OF ROWLETT. VERIZON. >> THEY PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS. >> VERIZON? I WILL NOT GO ANY FURTHER. I JUST HOPE THAT MY FELLOW MEMBERS CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A WANT OF SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO BUILD A TOWER. YOU KNOW I AM CONFUSED ALSO ABOUT A VERTICAL BRIDGE WANTING TO BUILD A TOWER AND LEASE IT AND THEN HOPE TO GET AT&T AND HOPE TO GET T-MOBILE AS A CUSTOMER AND HOPE TO MAYBE GET VERIZON AS A CUSTOMER. >> MOST OF US HAVE GONE OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. >> THEY DON'T WANT THE LIABILITY OF A TOWER FALLING OR A PERSON FALLING OFF OF A TOWER. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE SHORT ONE. HAVE YOU ALL TRIED TO TALK TO THE CITY ABOUT PUTTING YOUR SELF-SERVICE OFF OF THE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT? >> YES. AGAIN IF YOU REFER TO PAGES 34-37 OF YOUR PACKET I WILL LET YOU TURN TO THOSE PAGES. THAT IS AN EXHAUSTIVE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SIX YEARS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF. MANY OF WHOM ARE NOT ON CITY STAFF ANYMORE. IT HAS BEEN KIND OF A REVOLVING DOOR OF DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE DEALT WITH. AT VARIOUS TIMES WE LOOKED AT THIS LOCATION TWICE. WE LOOKED AT THE BONNET PARK, WE LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT FIRE STATIONS. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK WITH , SPEAK FOR ANYONE OF THE CITY BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE FIRE MARSHAL AT THE TIME REJECTED THE REQUEST TO GO ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE POLICE STATION BUT THE FIRE MARSHAL REJECTED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAT IS ALWAYS EASIER. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT I MAKE TWO BOARDS AND ZONING COMMISSIONS, CITY COUNCIL, IF THERE WERE A PATH TO THIS IS AN [00:40:13] EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS, IF THERE WERE A PATH TO AVOID THE PROCESS AND BIND THE APPLICANT THAT DID NOT NEED TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT WOULD DO IT. IF THERE WERE NO NEED FOR THIS TOWER, THE COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RANDOMLY BUILDING TOWERS. WE WILL HAVE A RESIDENT SPEAK TO THIS IN A MOMENT ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE WHEN THE TOWER CAME DOWN IN 2015. SHE IS A CURRENT RESIDENT AND HAS BEEN A RESIDENT FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS. SHE WILL COME UP AND SPEAK IN JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THAT. IN TERMS OF THE FALL ZONE I WANTED TO MAKE ONE OTHER POINT. IT WAS RAISED, THE CONCERN OF THE SOUTH. THAT IS NOT THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE HERE TO APPLY FOR. THE CITY HAS A VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT ABOUT HOW FAR WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. AND THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED THE ENGINEER'S LETTER SAYING THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FALL ZONE IN REGARD TO THE RESIDENCES AND HAVE CREATED A FEW FEET OF BUFFER TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. BUT ALL WE ARE HERE TO CONSIDER IS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO THE NORTH, THE VARIANCE RELATED TO THAT. AGAIN, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I REALLY WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY, READ OR SCAN THROUGH THOSE FOUR PAGES OF DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFORTS, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS GONE THROUGH, TO TRY TO FIND A LOCATION THAT WOULD WORK FOR THE CITY. IT IS ALWAYS EASIER AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD A TOWER UP FIVE YEARS AGO IF ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS HAD WORKED. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. BUT AT SOME POINT BE APPLICANT HAS TO MOVE ON. >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE FOR A BOARD MEMBER. ARE YOU, WITH THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE, ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE PRESENTING FALSE INFORMATION BASED ON THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THE NEED OF CELL SERVICE? AND ARE YOU ALSO CLAIMING THAT THE FALL ZONE CALCULATIONS MEETING THE CITY THAT NO ONE IS CLAIMING ARE FAULTY? >> >> SO THAT IS MY QUESTION. >> >> OKAY. SO THEN YOU ARE -- >> >> OKAY. >> I THINK THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. THE CITY ITSELF IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT THERE. >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENCROACHMENT REQUEST AND WHERE PROFESSIONALS THAT DO THIS FOR A LIVING ARE PRESENTING THIS AND SAYING THAT THEY NEED THIS HERE. >> >> I GUESS I AM ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY A STATEMENT YOU MADE, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CELL SERVICE IS REQUIRED AS THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IT IS BASED ON -- OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE CITY, WITH REGARDS TO THE TEMPORARY TOWERS. I REALIZE THAT THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM FOR THE WORD "TEMPORARY." I BELIEVE WE ARE WELL BEYOND THAT NOW. WHAT IS THE STATUS WITH THE CITY IN REGARDS TO THOSE TOWERS GOING AWAY? THEY ARE TECHNICALLY THERE BY TEMPORARY STATUS. >> WE HAVE CEASED ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY TO PUSH THEM TO MOVE WHILE THE APPLICANT IS GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS. SO I THINK IF IT WERE TO BE DENIED WE WOULD REVISIT WITH SOME REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO TRY AND FIND A SOLUTION TO RELOCATE THOSE OFF OF THE SITE. THEY WERE ISSUED AS TEMPORARY, WE ARE WAY YEARS BEYOND WHAT REALLY , UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE. >> SODA FURTHER CLARIFY, WE COULD BASICALLY BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE TOWER IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE AND NEITHER WILL THE TEMPORARY TOWERS. >> I DO BELIEVE THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, SIR. >> THANK YOU. LET ME SEE. AT THIS TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE [00:45:11] HAVE ANYONE WANTING TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE BOARD? >> YES. SHEILA -- >> IF YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS BEFORE YOU START. >> HELLO. I AM AT 7901 SCHRADE ROAD. I HAVE LIVED HERE ABOUT 10 YEARS. I WANT TO DESCRIBE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A TOWER HERE AT THIS LOCATION. IT IS A DEAD ZONE. WHEN, I LIVED HERE OF MARCH OF 2013. NO ISSUES WITH CELL PHONE SERVICE AND I HAD GREAT CELL SERVICE. UNFORTUNATELY THE TORNADO CAME THROUGH CHRISTMAS OF 2015 AND DESTROYED. THE PATH WAS HUMONGOUS. IT WIPED OUT THE PARK AND AS YOU KNOW WHAT IT DID TO THE WATER TOWER, WHICH HOUSED THE INTENT IS. -- ANTENNAS. SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE TORNADOES WE WOULD GO AND TRY TO CLEAN UP, TRYING TO REBUILD. I HAD NO CELL SERVICE. I COULD GET A CALL AND MAYBE TALK, IT WOULD DROP THE CALL. I WOULD TRY TO MAKE A CALL, IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO. NO MATTER WHAT TOWERS ARE AROUND, THAT LOCATION IS AN ISSUE. IT IS DEAD. THE NIGHT OF THE TORNADO WE TRIED TO GET TO SAFETY, WE GOT BACK TO THE SITE, I AM TRYING TO CALL FAMILY MEMBERS AND PEOPLE TRYING TO CALL ME. I WOULD ANSWER AND IT WOULD GO DEAD. MY FAMILY WAS WALKING TO GET THERE. THEY COULD NOT DRIVE. EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED. SO IT IS A DEAD ZONE. WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WE WOULD BE TRYING TO WORK AND IF I WENT AWAY TWO MILES, PERFECT SERVICE. BUT FROM THAT POINT IT IS A DEAD ZONE. THE WEAK SERVICE, THE DROPPED CALLS, TEMPORARY TRUCKS WERE THERE AND ONCE THEY CAME IN, PERFECT. NO PROBLEM, FOR ANY OF US. SO THAT WAS A LIFESAVER. AND THEY HAVE BEEN THERE. THANK GOD. I DID TRY A NEW SERVICE. I GOT THIS WILD IDEA. I WAS OFFERED THROUGH VERIZON A FREE PHONE WITH, YOU KNOW, I HAD TWO LINES AND ONE WOULD BE FREE, I DID IT A FEW MONTHS AGO. BAD IDEA. MY SERVICE WOULD DROP, SAME THING AS BEFORE. THAT IT FINALLY HIT ME, IT IS THE ANTENNAS. I WAS WITH AT&T BEFORE. SO I WENT BACK TO AT&T, NO PROBLEMS. SO THAT IS A DEAD ZONE FOR OTHER CARRIERS. WE NEED A PERMANENT TOWER. IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY THERE, IF I NEED TO CALL 911, FIRETRUCK, THEY ARE RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD BUT IF I CANNOT GET THEM THEY CANNOT GET TO ME. THIS IS A CONCERN WITH SEVERAL RESIDENTS THERE. I HAVE TALKED TO MANY AND WE ALL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, SAME CONCERN. SO WITHOUT A CELL PHONE TOWER I AM NOT SURE I AM ABLE TO GET HELP. NOT JUST ME, THERE IS 20 MORE FAMILIES IN THERE THAT NEED IT. AND I KNOW, I HAVE BEEN THERE AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE BAD, THE TORNADO, I HAD BEEN THROUGH WHEN WE HAD THE TEMPORARY -- >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NOPE. THAT IS IT? OKAY, AT THIS TIME WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZENS' INPUT. AT THIS TIME I ASK IF THERE IS A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS REQUEST . >> CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CITY ANOTHER QUESTION, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT. >> SURE. >> OKAY. DILEMMA HERE. FACT. CITY, OVER THE YEARS , I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1989. THE CELL PHONE TOWERS CAME INTO ROWLETT, THE CITY PUSHED TO EITHER HAVE THEM ON THE ELECTRIC POLES ON 66TH. OR ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LIKE THE WATER TOWERS, TO KEEP DOWN A PLETHORA OF TOWERS ALL AROUND. SO THE CITY KIND OF CREATED ITS OWN SITUATION. BY REALLY PUSHING. I CAN STATE [00:50:09] THAT AS A FACT, I WAS CHAIRMAN OF BUILDING CODES AND APPEALS BACK IN 1992, OR 1993-94. I WAS ON PLANNING AND ZONING FROM 1995-2005. AND THEY PUSHED IT PERK . VIRTUALLY EVERY REQUEST THAT CAME WE WANTED TO SHIFT IT OVER TO A WATER TOWER. WE DON'T HAVE A WATER TOWER THERE AND IT WAS NOT THE CITY'S FALL. BUT THEY SOLD THE COMPANY ON PUTTING ONE UP THERE. THEY PUSHED FOR IT. NOW THE CITY IS SAYING, UM, NOPE. WE DON'T REALLY WANT YOU THERE. YOU WILL ENCROACH ON THE FALL ZONE, ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THERE IS EVIDENTLY A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY NEGOTIATING ON PUTTING THIS DOWN AT THE NEW FIRE STATION, DOWN THE ROAD ON SCHRADE ROAD. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? >> >> SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? >> I DON'T THINK THAT EITHER OF US ARE ABLE TO SPEAK TO WHY THE CITY DID OR DID NOT AGREE TO ANY PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY IN THE PAST. >> OKAY. I UNDERSTAND YOU ALL ARE RELATIVELY NEW AND THIS GOES WAY BACK. PROBABLY BEFORE SOME IF NOT BOTH OF YOUR TIME WITH THE CITY. BUT WE HAVE HAD THIS, THESE TEMPORARIES SITTING OUT THERE SINCE SHORTLY AFTER THE TORNADO. AND THE CITY CREATED ITS OWN PROBLEM. BY PUSHING EVERYBODY TO GO TO THE CITY AND NOW THEY DON'T WANT IT THERE. SO THERE HAS GOT TO BE A COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE, IN MY OPINION. THAT IS IT. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A GENERAL DISCUSSION. >> OKAY. ANYONE OPPOSED TO GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC? ON THE BOARD. OKAY. >> >> YOU ARE EARLIER TALKING ABOUT THE CELL TOWERS WITHIN PROXIMITY, ARE THEY ALL PUBLIC POVERTY? >> >> >> [00:55:24] >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE GOOD BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD GET IT. ON HERE, GOING BACK TO THE TIMELINE ON EVERYTHING THEY TALKED ABOUT, BASICALLY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY, WHETHER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY COUNCIL, MADE IT SEEM EVERYTHING WAS GOOD AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE SAY NO AND GIVE NO RESPONSE. THIS IS DIFFERENT INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDED BUT WHEN I WENT THROUGH AND SAW THIS AND WAS LOOKING AT THINGS, GOING BACK THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS AVAILABLE BACK THEN, GOING ALONG THE SAME WAY OF JUST TO SAY NO AND THEN THAT WAS IT. >> IF THE CITY IS FORCED TO COME TO SOMETHING IN 60 DAYS, 120 DAYS, A TEMPORARY TOWER WILL NOT GO AWAY NEXT WEEK. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TONIGHT. IT WILL BE THERE FOR PROBABLY ANOTHER THREE OR SIX MONTHS AT LEAST, UNTIL THE DIFFERENT SERVICE ON THE EXISTING LOCATION ON THE CITY OR PUT UP A NEW TOWER OR REQUESTING A NEW TOWER TO BE PUT UP. THE TEMPORARIES WILL NOT DISAPPEAR NEXT WEEK, NEXT MONTH. THAT GIVES THE CITY AND THE REQUESTING PARTIES AMPLE TIME TO FIGURE THIS OUT. I MEAN I HEAR SO OFTEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT IS A PLACE TO DO BUSINESS AT. , A HARD PLACE TO DO BUSINESS AT. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THAT WAY. WE HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS IN THE CITY. THEY CAN HELP IT NOT BE THAT WAY. AND I JUST DON'T SEE US DOING AN EXCEPTION. IT IS AGAINST ORDINANCES TO PUT ON A PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT IS MY OPINION. I RESPECT EVERYBODY ELSE. >> ACTUALLY THAT IS NOT TRUE, THEY CLEARCUT AT THE BEGINNING THAT THE CELL TOWER IS ALLOWED IN SF-9 AND THAT WAS CLARIFIED WITH THE CITY PRESENTATION. >> BUT IT IS NOT, IN THE CITY. >> BUT AGAIN THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT ZONING IS ALLOWED. THE OTHER THING WE NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IN MAKING POINTS ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY MAKES MONEY OR NOT, THAT IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT . >> IS IT? OKAY. TELLING ME IT'S NOT TRUTHFUL THOUGH? >> I THINK OUR POSITION HERE IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE SWAYED BY WHETHER THE CITY OR PRIVATE COMPANY MAKES MONEY. ON OUR DECISION TONIGHT. >> SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS HERE. I AGREE WITH KEN. I DO NOT LIKE THE FALL ZONE BEING SO CLOSE TO THOSE TRAILERS. THOSE TRAILERS PREEXISTED NOW , WHERE THE TRAILER SAID, THAT TRAILER PARK HAS BEEN THERE, VERNON SET THAT UP BEFORE THE CELL PHONE TOWERS WHEN IN. BUT WITH THAT SAID THERE NEEDS TO BE A TOLERANCE. AND I REALIZE THERE IS AN ENGINEERING LOOKING AND THEY DO THEIR CALCULATIONS AND THEY HAVE GOT THEIR RADIUS, BUT LIKE KEN SAID, IF THERE IS A LITTLE SWAY THERE THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT MY TRAILER WILL NOT GET HIT. OKAY? ON THE CITY'S END, I UNDERSTAND THE CITY HAS ITS OWN, BUT THEY CANNOT FOR WHATEVER REASON WORKUP A SOLUTION. LIKE I SAID THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO A GREAT DEGREE BECAUSE THEY PUSHED EVERYBODY TO BE ON WATER TANKS OR ELECTRIC POLES. SO NOW WE HAVE A DILEMMA THAT THE WATER TANK IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. SO WHETHER IT IS AT&T OR T-MOBILE, WHAT DO THEY DO ABOUT THAT? I AM WONDERING IF THERE IS A COMPROMISE. THAT IT CAN BE IN THIS LOCATION. AND PUSH THAT POLE NORTH, MAYBE A TAD EAST, MAYBE , MAINLY NORTH AND IT GIVES A CUSHION OFF THOSE TRAILERS. THE CITY HAS NOT DONE [01:00:04] ANYTHING WITH THAT PROPERTY, REALIZE THAT NOW WE HAVE A DILEMMA, AS TAXPAYERS TECHNICALLY OWN THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE OWN , BECAUSE WE ARE THE CITY. WHATEVER WE CAN DO WITH THE FUTURE OF THAT PROPERTY, AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD OF TWO MAJOR CARRIERS, TWO OF THE THREE LARGEST CARRIERS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS AND HAVE ALL KINDS OF CUSTOMERS SITTING IN, ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, VERY MUCH LIKE PUTTING IN A STREET. WHY DO YOU PUT IN STREETS? FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND SO FORTH. YOU HAVE AN INFRASTRUCTURE HERE. IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND SO I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED IF YOU PULLED THAT POLE BACK TO THE NORTH . AND THE CITY UNFORTUNATELY CAN SOME WHAT DEAL WITH THAT AREA AND WHAT EVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY OR STATE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT, OR EVEN HELP THE APPLICANT MAYBE GO TO A DIFFERENT CITY TOWER. >> MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT IT EXACERBATES WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING NOW AND IT MAKES IT GREATER. IF YOU PUSH IT MORE NORTH. ACCORDING TO THE SOUTH EVERYTHING IS FINE. AND BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT , NOT TO PUSH ON IT BUT THAT FALLBACK IS SIGNED AND SEALED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY OF PUTTING THEIR NAME AND SIGNATURE AND SEAL ON IT TO SAY THAT THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THAT STRUCTURE IF IT FALLS. IS NOT JUST SOMEBODY SAYING IT SHOULD BE GOOD AND THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER AND WE ARE OKAY. IT IS SOMEBODY SAYING THAT IF IT WERE TO HIT A TRAILER THAT ENGINEER IS NOW -- >> AND WHAT IS THE CHANCE THAT ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THAT ENGINEER IF SOMETHING HAPPENS 20 YEARS FROM NOW? >> >> IT IS BASED ON CITY REGULATIONS WHICH ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. >> >> SO THE FALL ZONE IS BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER. THE BREAKPOINT. SO I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS AND JUST WANT TO INTERJECT QUICKLY. NUMBER ONE, WE KEEP REFERENCING THE IMPACT TO THE RESIDENCES IN THE AREA AND THERE IS NO VARIANCE REQUESTED REGARDING OUR SETBACK FROM THOSE HOMES. THE ONLY REQUEST RIGHT NOW, ONLY PROPERTY THAT IS BEING ENCROACHED UPON BY THE PROPOSED FALL ZONE IS THE CITY PROPERTY. SO IF THIS WERE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE CITY PROPERTY THAN IT WOULD NOT BE VARIANCE REQUESTED WOULD BE APPROVED ALREADY HAS PRESENTED. AND THEN IN TERMS OF MOVING THE LOCATION, THAT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION AND THERE IS NO ABILITY FOR THIS BODY TONIGHT TO APPROVE IT WITH A DIFFERENT LOCATION. YOU CANNOT GO TO A BIGGER SETBACK OR VARIANCE THAN WHAT WAS REQUESTED OR MOVING THE LOCATION AS PART OF YOUR APPROVAL. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> NOT EVEN ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY? >> SO THE SET BACK WOULD BE A LARGER VARIANCE ON WHAT WAS REQUESTED AND WE COULD NOT GRANT THAT TONIGHT. >> GO AHEAD. >> SURE. >> WAS VERY LOCATION THAT WAS SLIGHTLY NORTH AND ENCROACHED MORE IN THE NORTHERN TRACT. THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT, WE FELT LIKE FROM THAT MEETING, WAS THAT WE NEEDED TO MOVE SLIGHTLY TO THE SOUTH AND SHRINK THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER SO WE WERE WITHIN THE SETBACK TO THE NORTH. NO ONE PROMISED US ANYTHING, BUT THAT WAS THE GUIDANCE THAT WE FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT WE FELT THAT WE FIRST RESPONDED TO THE FEEDBACK BY MOVING SOUTH AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE. IF I COULD. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY BEING ASKED TONIGHT IS ARE WE WILLING TO ENCUMBER ANOTHER PROPERTY? WHETHER IT IS THE CITY'S OR INDOOR ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER WITH BEING ABLE TO BUILD THIS TOWER HERE. I RECOGNIZE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL BARRIER BEING WARRANTED, BUT IF THE LAND WERE TO BE SOLD IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOLD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTHING COULD BE BUILT IN THAT FALL ZONE. IT WOULD TECHNICALLY ENCUMBER THE PREVIOUS OWNER. I REALLY THINK WHEN WE ZERO BACK TO THEIR QUESTION TONIGHT OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS, ARE WE WILLING TO GRANT THIS TO ENCUMBER THIS PRETTY. -- PROPERTY? [01:05:03] >> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT. >> DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE? OR ARE WE READY TO CLOSE THE DISCUSSION AND REQUEST A MOTION? >> >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. THAT WE VOTE TO VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY. TO CLARIFY THE REQUEST IS TO VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> GO AHEAD. >> OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME LET'S VOTE. >> ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME IT APPEARS THAT THE MOTION HAS CARRIED, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MOVING ON. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME AND OPINIONS. THEY ARE VALUABLE. AT THIS TIME WE MOVE, SORRY, GOING BACK TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA HERE. AT THIS TIME WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5, ADJOURNMENT. AND THE TIME IS 7:36. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.