BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 15 of 68 1 Tom Johnson: I object to that because the statute and the ordinance … well the statute says within the search ring and 2 I think you are referring to the Alltel tower which is not within the search ring. 3 4 Bob Hornik: In any event, it is your business choice, T-Mobile’s business choice to opt for a second cell site? 5 6 Tom Johnson: I object if it is questioning a business decision. 7 8 Larry Wright: Sustained. 9 10 Bob Hornik: You haven’t accosted out the commercial feasibility of any height or adding new tower at the existing 11 Kerley Road site? Is that correct? 12 13 Lee Kerlin: I haven’t done any calculations on what it would cost. 14 15 Larry Wright: May I ask a question of our attorney? Does this line of questioning……we really can’t rule on this can 16 we? Is it relevant to us… this costing out? 17 18 James Bryan: I don’t know how far Mr. Hornik wants to go with this but the statute says that the county may not require 19 information or evaluate an applicant’s business decision. 20 21 Larry Wright: That is where I’m…this was presented to us. Where are you going with this line of questioning? 22 23 Bob Hornik: I want to read the same statute that Mr. Johnson was reading to you earlier. Among the things you are 24 allowed to consider, the county, I’m reading from subparagraph, 153 A-349.52 subparagraph C, subparagraph 3 of the 25 General Statute. “A county may require applicants for new wireless facilities to evaluate the reasonable feasibility of co-26 locating new antennas and equipment on an existing wireless support structure or structures within the applicant’s 27 search ring. Co-location on an existing support structure is not reasonably feasible if co-location is technically or 28 commercially impractical or the owner of the existing wireless support structure is unwilling to enter into a contract for 29 such use at fair market value.” We don’t know if they haven’t costed out, considered the cost of modifying the Kerley 30 Road facility, whether it is technically or commercially impractical for this candidate to consider co-location there. 31 32 Jeff Schmitt: If you co-located on the existing tower, one half mile from you r proposed site here, the coverage you 33 would get is effectively no different than the before slide you are presenting here, correct, unless the radios are different 34 or the range is different. 35 36 Tom Johnson: There would be a hole here in coverage here. The re would be coverage north, are you suggesting if…. 37 38 Jeff Schmitt: If you just put your antennas… co-located them on the existing tower…. 39 40 Tom Johnson: The ATC Tower? 41 42 Jeff Schmitt: Yes. Why would the after and before map, it seems would be the same ? 43 44 Tom Johnson: No, because of the difference in the height of the antennas. The frequencies we are talking about are in 45 the microwave range of the distance of the antennas above the ground is very important to how far the propagation is 46 so if you are saying the difference in what we are proposing versus the ACT tower, there is a very large difference. 47 48 Jeff Schmitt: Yes. You would have to locate further down on the tower than the existing antennas that are there, is that 49 correct? 50