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
He read further and interpreted that communities can regulate and discriminate on a <br />reasonable basis to encourage comrnuniiy values and encourage the interests of t he zoning <br />requirements. He failed to see the need for this tower because Nextel has the best service <br />in this community. He saw no evidence that this additional tower would enhance their <br />service. He questioned Nextel's ability to sublease church property thus becoming a <br />commercial venture on (tax -relief} church property. He deemed this an inappropriate use of <br />the property to the detriment of the neighborhood. <br />Allan Gabriel, attorney for Nextel, 2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard, Ft. L,�uderdale, <br />Florida, requested the Board deny the appeal. He felt that the PZC was the finder +�f fact and <br />had made the determination that Nextel met the requirements of the code as it a gists. The <br />questions that were raised were answered satisfactorily and they approved the site. He <br />referred to the Federal Telecommunications Act which established various requi--ements; it <br />says that local governments are pre-empted from relating to or addressing he lth issues. <br />Those concerns ares eculative and are dealt with b the FCC. As lon as Nexte� com lies <br />P Y g p , <br />which it does, then the equipment is deemed to be safe. He referred to Sec. 971..44 of the <br />Code which sets out specific site locations in the community. Nextel has followed the code <br />to the letter, has not asked for waivers, and has received approval from the PZC. The issues <br />raised by members of the audience might be addressed in an amendment, but he asked that <br />the appeal be denied. He then responded to questions and concerns on height, lid Ming (will <br />not light unless FAA requires), and setback compliance. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn <br />concerning an alternative to this tower site, this site has been determined to be a required <br />need because of capacity issues and users are demanding additional capacity lE�vels in the <br />service. He advised that several owners had denied Nextel the use of their grope rty. No tall <br />structures exist in this area where they could locate this tower. <br />Larry Fajardo, an RF (radio frequency) engineer for Nextel, came forward to <br />December 12, 2000 <br />QJ{ � � � �� �2� 98 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.