BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 135 of 156 Home Depot where’s there’s a cell tower that is camouflaged as a tree. You wouldn’t notice it at 1 first until you realize it’s a really tall tree and the other trees aren’t so tall. Was that something that 2 was considered? 3 4 Laura Goode: So there was a statement in here, and I apologize; my brain is a little bit fried at this 5 point in time. I’m not sure exactly which tab this is in. I believe it is either in tab 4… And tab 27 6 also talks about the inability to flush mount antennas. Essentially, there’s two different ways to 7 approach this. So first, in terms of stealthing there’s other ways of stealthing than just the tree that 8 you’ve seen, the mono-pine as what we may refer to it as. We can also do slick poles, church 9 bells, church steeples, things of that nature. The problem with that is it limits, significantly, the 10 number of antennas and radios and types of either… You know, whether you can do fiber at the 11 site. So those are types of stealthing would not work to meet the network objective for this site as 12 stated in these statements because we need a certain number or antennas, a certain number of 13 radios, the fiber line, in order to make it perform and meet that network objective that we’re trying 14 to meet. And you start to do stealth, I’m not talking about mono-pine, the other types of stealth 15 technology, it reduces the ability to use that technology. And that’s why that’s not feasible. In 16 terms of mono-pine, it was not something that was considered for this site. Typically, again, what 17 you run into with mono-pines is when the tower is going to be significantly taller that the existing 18 tree cover what you end up getting is a visual of a really tall pipe cleaner instead of a tree that 19 blends in with its surroundings. So typically we try to do mono-pine designs where you’ve got 20 trees where the tower is more similar to the height to the tree levels so that’s it’s not 100-feet over 21 the trees, it’s more like 30-feet over the trees, if that makes sense. So does that answer your 22 question? 23 24 Matt Hughes: That does. And it’s something that came to mind earlier and I just completely forgot 25 to ask it. So that satisfies my answer. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: And I have a question that may be for our attorney. I’ll just pick someone… If we 28 made all the findings to say that we must grant this Special Use Permit, could we impose a 29 condition that as a condition of the issuance of the permit that TowerCom obtained a contract or 30 an agreement with the Buckner’s’ that they will not timber a certain area around the tower? That 31 they will leave intact the trees in a certain perimeter? As a condition of granting the permit. If we 32 make all of the findings. 33 34 James Bryan: Right, so I would recommend no. I would only recommend that you only make 35 conditions if there is a lacking of finding. If they can’t meet the requirement. But if they’ve already 36 offered evidence that is substantial, competent material that they can meet the evidence with the 37 plan presented then there’s no need for the condition. If they’re agreeable to it that’s another 38 matter. The other issue that I would say that it would meet a certain level of specificity, what 39 exactly. 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Like with the 40-feet? 42 43 James Bryan: Yeah I’m not sure. Michael probably could help. You could say like our Type C, 44 whatever. But I think the factors are the width of it, 40-feet, and then the type of tree so not those 45 you know small bushes. And then I imagine there’s got to be another fact about density, but I 46 don’t… 47 48 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 49 50 137