My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/13/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
11/13/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:06:32 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 9:05:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/13/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
M M <br />Jeff Sluggett, representing Sprint, believed that Sprint would <br />feel pretty comfortable with 5-7 sites in their original deployment <br />in Indian River County and are looking at having 9-12 sites in 5 <br />years. He stressed that not all of those would be new towers; they <br />could be co -locations with American Towers System sites.. <br />Bruce Barkett, attorney representing BellSouth felt the <br />problem is determining how many customers there will be in the <br />future because the number of customers drives the need for more <br />towers. If the County can project where the county's population is <br />going to be in 5 years and how many people are willing to buy the <br />service, then the carriers could determine where their coverage is <br />going to be required. <br />Commissioner Bird still felt the decisions will have to be <br />made on a site by site location with consideration given to the <br />need for a tower in that area. <br />Director Keating requested further direction from the Board as <br />to what they would find acceptable and what they would not. If <br />hanging antennae on poles is acceptable, then staff can go on from <br />there. For example, does the Board want to see a tower with <br />pulsating red lights since towers over 200 ft. must flash? <br />Chairman Adams asked if towers would be necessary to provide <br />coverage in spotty areas along I-95. She emphasized that we are <br />giving the carriers an opportunity to tell us where they need the <br />towers, but they are asking us to first give them the population <br />numbers for specific areas. <br />Susan Delagough, attorney representing PrimeCo, advised that <br />they will have 2 towers out along I-95 which will provide basic <br />coverage, but their second generation towers or lower towers will <br />be dictated by the demand. She recommended a bit of a different <br />approach for everyone struggling with this issue. Rather than <br />identifying the things that you cannot live with, approach it more <br />from a planning standpoint of providing options and alternatives in <br />the LDRs that are adopted. For instance, identify zoning <br />categories such as industrial and create alternatives for <br />industrial to come in and make certain decisions as to how they <br />want to site towers or antennae in that area whereby some of the <br />decisions would be dictated by what sort of a process the carrier <br />NOVEMBER 13, 1996 <br />q, <br />Boa 99 PAIL. 84 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.