BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 16 of 68 1 Lee Kerlin: The next position down. 2 3 Jeff Schmitt: So your doing that would affectively not give you any business leverage over what existing carriers have 4 with their antenna, is that correct? 5 6 Lee Kerlin: And let me speak to the technical aspect because you ask a question about, is it technically possibly to 7 mount the antennas. Well certainly it is technically possible to put antennas on there, radios on this and make a cell 8 site. Is it technically possible to provide the coverage that we want to provide in this area, the objective of the search 9 ring, at that, no, I don’t believe it is. 10 11 Larry Wright: Samantha, I would like your feeling. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: I would be interested in their response only because I read the statute to say that we may require 14 information necessary to determine whether co-location on an existing wireless support structure is reasonably feasible. 15 I don’t know how you determine some things reasonably feasible unless you are comparing. It wouldn’t be feasible if it 16 costs a whole lot more or if it didn’t provide….I think there is lots of factors to what is reasonably feasible and I do agree 17 that the sentence above that allows him to ask questions an d us to consider whether or not the owner of the existing 18 wireless support is unwilling to enter a contract for use at a fair market value. I would like to hear information on that. I 19 don’t think we should hear information on specific business determinati ons about what they may but we need to know 20 whether they considered it or not. 21 22 Tom Johnson: Mr. Kerlin doesn’t do that aspect of it. I do have people here who to do that aspect in terms of 23 contacting and the commercial… I will admit to you upfront from a commercial monetary point of view and we will 24 stipulate to this, it would probably be cheaper to locate on the existing tower as opposed to building a new tower. I’ll 25 take that away. That is fine, we will agree to that with no questions asked. The pr oblem is what Mr. Kerlin just said is 26 the technical impracticability of it because it doesn’t make sense to co -locate on an existing tower if you can’t get the 27 signal strength you are trying to achieve with this site and even adding a little bit to this st ill puts it at a height 28 disadvantage. That’s what we are presenting. We will stipulate whether you talk to him, whether you didn’t, it is pretty 29 obvious that the available height on the American Tower site is lower that where we are looking at locating. Monetarily 30 it really doesn’t matter because monetary is not driving this. 31 32 Lee Kerlin: I have a director I answer to. We have a search ring that has a proposed objective after the field of the site, 33 my director wants to see whether was met. I wouldn’t go to him with the ATC tower and expect at the end of the day to 34 have met my objective and to have the approval of my director in the end and that is what I was trying to talk about the 35 technical aspect. Yes we could co-locate on that, we are not going to achieve the objectives we are trying to achieve. 36 37 Tom Johnson: If Mr. Hornik doesn’t have any further questions of this witness, I can bring my others. 38 39 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, before we bring another witness, I don’t wish my statement to be constr ued to lending 40 any credence to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hornik’s arguments but I will remind the board, as we have outlined in our 41 abstract, page 55, Section 5.10.8(b) 4 subparagraph b, number 4 of the UDO establishes what I believe is a very 42 reasonable process by which the applicant is required to demonstrate why he or she cannot locate on an existing tower 43 within a half mile. I believe these requirements are consistent with what the state statute gives us the authority do to. I t 44 is obviously Mr. Johnson’s argument is that I can do it for the reasons we have summarized here and obviously it is Mr. 45 Hornik’s contention that is not correct but I want to remind the board that the five standards we currently have and abide 46 by; appropriate space on the existing tele communication wireless support structure is not available; applicants made a 47 good faith effort to negotiate an agreement has been unsuccessful; telecommunication equipment on the existing 48 wireless support structure is not compatible; adequate coverage by the applicant which goes to Samantha’s question at 49 the beginning of this hearing, adequate coverage by the applicant cannot be met at the location of the existing wireless 50