BOA minutes 070813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/10/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 11 of 82 Michael Harvey: Without jumping the gun, yes, the ordinance does require it and, if this board sees fit to approve this 1 tower application, there is a condition requiring the offering of an antenna site, which the county can refuse, but the 2 offer has to be made. So yes they have to offer us a site for that purpose. 3 4 Larry Wright: We had testimony previously in the first half of this session that Verizon, has access to Verizon towers 5 and you could use a Verizon phone in this area if needed… Did you take a look for possible co-location sites on 6 Verizon towers in this area? 7 8 Karen Kemerait: We did and there are no existing towers within the search range. That has been confirmed with Mr. 9 Harvey as well. There are no existing towers that AT&T could co-locate on. 10 11 Michael Harvey: I had testimony in the last meeting indicating that in the application package there is a map showing 12 existing cell tower locations and this is an area where there are no existing cell towers so they are required to exhaust 13 co-location opportunities before they submit the application. 14 15 David Blankfard: How is it that Verizon can provide service to this area and AT&T cannot? 16 17 Rusty Monroe: Each service provider’s network is designed differently. They are designed from different directions 18 and they do have a facility that is close enough to provide some service in this area. They are not able to just overlay 19 these facilities. They are all designed from different areas using different signal strengths. Each one is an entity unto 20 itself or a self-supporting entity. This facility, we have more than reasonable probability of expecting at least one 21 carrier if not two or more who want to co-locate on this facility especially going forward because the issue will become, 22 once what Ms. Kemerait has described, is done, the issue now becoming a case is less and less coverage and more 23 and more its capacity and you need a lot more site a lot closer together, not necessarily towers but for reasons of 24 capacity because these facilities have a very finite capability of handling a given amount of traffic, they have to be a lot 25 closer together. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: I have a question for either of you. If other carriers decide to co-locate on this tower, will it affect the 28 appearance or size of the tower in any way? 29 30 Karen Kemerait: No, it will not. The ordinance requires that this is part of our application materials that it has to be 31 room on the tower for AT&T and three additional carriers so AT&T is already committed and that is why we are here 32 today. That is why we are here today, we should not be here if it was not a carrier that needed coverage in the area 33 and then three additional carriers can co-locate on American Tower's tower. The benefit of that is these other carriers 34 will not need to look for new tower sites because they can co-locate on this carrier and the ordinance requires that if 35 there is a tower in the search area, they have to co-locate on it before they can look for a site for a new tower. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: The size and shape is already built out for four carriers, AT&T and three additional ones so it would 38 not change the way it looks, the size or height? 39 40 Karen Kemerait: The height in one of the conditions is that it will be a 199-foot telecommunications tower and one of 41 the other requirements of the ordinance is that the antennas have to be flush mounted so when AT&T puts on its 42 antennas, they will be flush mounted so they will not be visible or barely visible at all and the same situation will be for 43 the additional carriers that locate their antennas on the tower after AT&T puts its tower on it. The height of the tower 44 will not be extended for additional towers. 45 46 Karen Barrows: In Mr. Dixon’s exhibit on page 12, he is talking about the balloon testing photos you have submitted 47 and none of them really show an impact for the property owners closest to the tower. Was there a reason for that or is 48 that true? 49 50