Plan commission hears SpaceX/Starlink site-plan presentation; asks for details on noise, fiber and emergency access

SpaceX representatives outlined a proposal to install a ground‑mounted satellite earth‑station compound at 13760 Osborne Street in Cedar Lake, explaining the facility would host about 40 small antennas (roughly 8 feet tall) inside an approximately half‑acre, 8‑foot‑metal‑panel‑fenced compound to support Starlink broadband backhaul.

Ken Lions of the Wireless Policy Group presented the technical case, saying the antennas “are approximately 8 ft tall” and are intended to link low‑Earth‑orbit satellites to fiber backhaul. Allison (the project engineer) described the site design and screening, and told commissioners the compound would be unmanned, have pre-cast concrete pads for the antennas, no exterior lighting proposed, and no fixed generators; she gave a maximum aggregate noise figure of 56 dBA at the fence under a high‑power, worst‑case operating scenario.

Commissioners pressed for specifics. Questions included where the compound’s fiber would tie into the network and whether SpaceX would install new fiber (the presenters said they would use existing fiber providers), what data‑center locations would serve the site, the location of the next satellite‑earth‑station compound, whether any onsite generators could be required in the future, how emergency access would be provided through the fence, and whether the antennas’ frequencies could interfere with local first‑responder or consumer devices. Lions and Allison said the antennas operate on frequency bands different from typical cellular and public‑safety bands and that the installations comply with FCC RF exposure limits and relevant rules for these types of facilities when situated in commercial/industrial zones.

Residents raised privacy and safety concerns in the public‑comment period. One commenter stated concerns about SpaceX ownership and data security and said the presence of satellites raised privacy questions; commissioners and staff responded that zoning and site‑plan review must follow local code and that such broader claims do not change the town's ability to review the site plan.

Outcome and next steps: commissioners did not vote on the site plan at this meeting. Staff and the applicant agreed the applicant will provide additional materials—addresses of comparable sites, confirmation of backhaul/fiber arrangements, clarification on noise metrics at the property line, and details on emergency‑service access—and will return to the commission at the next work session (commissioners suggested a two‑week turnaround).