My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/12/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
12/12/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 4:30:59 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:47:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/12/2000
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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
minimal LDRs is not all that is required for approval. She felt that she and other neighbors <br />should have been allowed to speak during the PZC's deliberations. She raised the is sue that <br />although Mr. Fajardo ofNextel had responded to questions at the PZC, he is not an e.lgineer. <br />She also asserted that the question of capacity and coverage issues relating to the meed for <br />a particular height at a particular location were not addressed by a qualified individual on <br />behalf of the county. Nextel had indicated that they "need it because they need it" and <br />details and other alternatives were not given consideration. She felt Oslo Road woLld have <br />been a more appropriate location. Property owners there have advised that they v��ere not <br />contacted about locating a tower on their property, but some of them have indicated a <br />willingness to do so. She mentioned two other nearby tower sites and questioned wily those <br />towers could not be incorporated in a coverage grid. She also questioned why they ca>uld not <br />utilize the bell towers at two nearby churches. Landscaping at the base of the p, oposed <br />tower will do nothing to mask the height of the tower. She wondered why several of the <br />questions raised at the PZC were not adequately addressed and commented that a mcanopole <br />of 149' had to meet only four requirements where 154' or more had to meet 17. Sh e asked <br />whether there was an overall 14 -year grid plan far the telecommunication companies' <br />expansion of service or if it was to bepatch-worked. She wished to know exactly what area <br />this tower was designed to cover and where was the beam of greatest intensir�, She <br />questioned whether the cellular industry is working on technology that will decrease the need <br />for towers and asked who will be financially responsible far removing obsolete towers. She <br />felt the Board of County Commissioners had spent a lot of effort putting the requirements <br />in place, but she thought that after S years they have discovered that there are same serious <br />holes in the requirements which might allow unsightly towers in inappropriate areas where <br />the Board never intended them to be. She asked the Board to grant the appeal and declare <br />a moratorium on further towers until the requirements can be readdressed. During that <br />December 12, 200Q <br />95 <br />��i � � � �� � � �J <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.