BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 11 of 68 Karen Barrows: This might be more for Michael. This letter from Jackie Hicks, who is Jackie? 1 2 Michael Harvey: Jackie Hicks is our telecommunications consultant. 3 4 Karen Barrows: Is her concern met with what Tom is telling us? 5 6 Michael Harvey: I would argue that the applicant should finish their presentation and we will get to Ms. Hick’s letter of 7 recommendation or he may want to address it. 8 9 Tom Johnson: The standards mentioned in this letter largely equate to the ordinance regarding stealth and that is why I 10 am offering it up because it addresses the consultant’s primary concerns in terms of ____ from the ordinance. There 11 are other items mentioned in here that is why I went over the state statute earlier . It talks about using other types of 12 facilities such as utility poles, billboards, other things such as that. Number one, those are very short, which won’t meet 13 the objectives but under state law, as I pointed out, the standard under the state statute is whether or not a carrier can 14 co-locate on existing towers. They are called wireless support structures. I point to the definition of a section of the 15 state statute which is 153A-349.51, number 10 is the definition of wireless support structure. This is a new or existing 16 structure such as a monopole, lattice tower or guide tower that is designed to support or capable of supporting wireless 17 facilities so it is just feeding to a tower and it does specifically state that a utility pole is not a wireless support stru cture. 18 Basically, the way the state statute views it is if your tower is available, you have to examine those but if other 19 structures, utilities are not part of that analysis so that is why I disagree with what is in the consultant’s letter but the 20 large part of that is stealth. I have been talking to Ms. Hicks consistently over the entire process. The main concern I 21 was hearing is the stealth of the towers so that is why I decided to come back with these offers because that was the 22 primary things. Again, I am going to have the engineer come up now and speak to the need, why the tower here, the 23 search ring, but also comparing the existing tower and why it will not to work to meet the business design and objective 24 that T-Mobile had. I think this is important for you to know and that is where this gets into, in terms of the coverage. 25 This again is a map that shows the location. Lee if you could come up I would like for you to talk to what these colors 26 mean, what these maps, what these three towers are and if you could ... This is Lee Kerlin; he is an RF Engineer with 27 T-Mobile. He can speak to the colors on this map, what it means and what the objectives of this sign are. 28 29 Lee Kerlin: Good evening, Lee Kerlin, 1421 Bearmore Court, Raleigh, N.C. I have been sworn. I am an RF Engineer 30 with T-Mobile. I am here for your questions. To point out the need for the tower in this location, what we are attempting 31 to do is provide coverage on Mt. Sinai, on Erwin Road and the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial structures 32 in the area. The obvious choice is in this area and that is why the search ring was put here. The candidate that we 33 have identified does meet our needs. If we want to speak about the co -location opportunity of the ATC, it is my opinion 34 that the available height on that does not meet the needs or objectives of the search ring and that is why we are not 35 pursuing that. The difference in height, while only 15 feet on the tower itself, the ATC tower is approximately 50 -60 feet 36 lower in ground elevation so we are actually talking a difference of around 70 feet in actual difference in the center line 37 of the antennas and that is why the propagation is so much different between the two locations. 38 39 Samantha Cabe: Would you say that it is technically impractical to mo unt your devices on the existing American 40 Tower’s tower? 41 42 Lee Kerlin: We certainly could mount antennas and radios at that site. It would not meet our objectives for this search 43 ring and not provide the coverage requirement. 44 45 Samantha Cabe: It is commercially impractical; does it cost too much to mount that there? 46 47 Lee Kerlin: Not commercially impractical in that sense . Commercially impractical in the sense that the location will not 48 provide the coverage we are seeking for our current customers and for future customers. 49 50