My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/5/1996 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
11/5/1996 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:51 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 8:58:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/05/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Sluggett addressed two questions to Director Keating. <br />Concerning co -location, he asked if there is an existing <br />communications tower, would it still provide for co -location by an <br />additional user. He also asked about roof -top antennae. Director <br />Keating nodded in response to both questions. <br />Mr. Sluggett urged that the moratorium/process be shortened to <br />3 months or 120 days, because both Sprint and Nextel (another <br />client) do not have existing networks, are trying to get their <br />networks in place, and are concerned that the 6 months will delay <br />them. He felt, from a radio frequency standpoint, that additional <br />sites will be needed in addition to co -location. <br />Mr. Sluggett expressed appreciation to the County for working <br />with the industry, thanked staff for doing an excellent job in that <br />regard, and gave assurances that he will continue to work with <br />them. <br />CLERK'S NOTE: Mr. Sluggett submitted three <br />photos showing examples of utility poles with <br />antennae. The photos have been placed on file <br />in the office of the Clerk to the Board. <br />Director Keating advised that staff supports using the <br />existing poles and suggested that the Board might want to put a <br />height limit on poles if they were in favor of the idea. <br />Chairman Adams asked what area FP&L is considering, and Ms. <br />Scott advised that Mr. Sluggett's clients are presently only <br />looking at the I-95 corridor. <br />Mr. Sluggett confirmed the I-95 corridor is presently being <br />considered, especially since Sprint is still designing their <br />systems, but initially they will determine their highest traffic <br />areas (calls from vehicles). <br />Chairman Adams' only concern about exempting existing poles <br />is that a pole on A1A, for example, might be raised higher. <br />Commissioner Eggert stated that County Attorney Vitunac had <br />advised that if the Board agreed to an exception, it could be <br />restricted to the I-95 corridor. <br />Chairman Adams requested clarification on exactly where that <br />would be, the 10 -mile ridge or east of I-95, and Mr. Sluggett <br />advised that as late as Friday, his client had merely indicated <br />their initial thrust would be the I-95 corridor. <br />Chairman Adams was not comfortable in having the exception <br />without knowing exactly. She predicted staff would work quickly <br />because the Board was anxious to have the solutions in place. She <br />61 BOOK 99 pn,E 578 <br />November 5, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.