My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/8/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
8/8/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:19 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:45:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/08/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
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
involve tnaoequate height, inadequate space or structural capacity and <br />radio-frequency interference shall include an explanation of why <br />-' structural modifications that could overcome such problems are not <br />feasible. any such reasons shall be reviewed by a county engineering <br />consultant, as referenced in (e) and (f) below. <br />Note: Provided, and reviewed by telecommunications manager Terry <br />Smith. The FCC will not move its defined broadcast location area 1 <br />to 2 miles south to allow use of existing ±300' towers located <br />southwest of Fellsmere. Also, the existing ±200' tall AT&T tower <br />located along CR 507, which is located 4,954' from the proposed <br />tower, cannot be re -built to a taller height and meet county <br />regulations. Furthermore, the AT&T tower is shorter than needed for <br />the FM broadcast use and the top portions of the tower are already <br />occupied by existing facilities (e.g. dishes). <br />Conclusion: Existing towers in the area cannot be used for the FM <br />broadcast use due to regulatory and technical reasons. <br />(e) Submittal of a fee established by resolution of the board of county <br />commissioners, separate from site plan and special exception review <br />fees, to cover the county's costs of hiring an engineering consultant <br />to review the written justification, where a county consultant review <br />is required under subsection (d), above. <br />Note: Not applicable, because the county's Telecommunications _ <br />Manager reviewed the justification and coordinated with the FCC and <br />applicant regarding the justification. Thus, the technical review has <br />been accomplished in-house. See Mr. Smith's comment letter, <br />(attachment #5). <br />(f) Within ten (10) working days of receiving a written justification that <br />requires county consultant review, the county's engineering consultant <br />shall submit to county staff written comments regarding the <br />applicant's justification and reasons. <br />Note: See (e) above, and Telecommunications Manager Tent' <br />Smith's comment memo (attachment #5). <br />(g) Applicants shall provide notice of the proposed tower to potential <br />users. <br />(a) * At least forty-five (45) days prior to planning and zoning <br />commission consideration of an application, the applicant <br />shall send a notice by certified mail to all known potential <br />tower uses, as specified by the planning division. Said notice <br />shall provide tower technical specifications, location, height. <br />and an invitation to respond within twenty (20) days to both <br />the applicant and planning division if cause of the tower is <br />desired. Said notice shall also include the phone number, <br />AUGUST 8, 2000 Ou 1 14 PG <br />-45- 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.