Conditional Use (Regular) - Roland A and Anna F Dunlap/North American Towers, LLC/West Orange Wireless, LLC - 185- Foot Above-Ground-Level Unipole Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) in an A-R Agricultural- Residential District - North Central Pasco County - South Side of Bent Fork Road, Approximately 1,500 Feet West of Bellamy Bros Boulevard File Number PDD23-CU29

1:47:26Okay, so this is item Denny's Hernandez Planning and Development. This is item P9. It's PDD 23CU29. On the names of the Roland A, Anna F. Dunlap, North American Towers LLC, West Orange Wireless LLC, free conditional use for 185-foot above-ground level UNIPOL wireless communication facility in an AR agricultural residential district.

1:47:49The applicant proposes proposes a 185-foot um above-ground level UNICOL wireless communication facility suitable for the co-location of three additional carriers within a 10,000 square foot fenced compound area, which is part of an overall 20-acre, more or less parcel. It's located on the south side of Bent Fork Road, approximately 1,500 feet west of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. The zoning is AR agricultural residential, the land use is res one, residential one dwelling unit per gross

1:48:19acre. The subject location is in north-central Pasco County in the rural transition area. The current zoning is AR, Agricultural Residential, to the north is AC. To the south is AR and AC.

1:48:36The current future land use is Res One, residential one dwelling in a per gross acre, and to the north is AG.

1:48:44This is a um

1:48:48An aerial view of where the site is. Access to the site is from Bed Fork Road. Proposed access to the compound lease area for the wireless communication facility is proposed through a 25-foot wide access and utility easement.

1:49:03The subject side is in red. The proposed location of the tower or wireless communication facility is the yellow dot. To the north of the property is Bent Fork Road. To the east is the Bellamy Brothers Trail. And I'm also showing the location of the other applicant, which is approximately 1920. feet northeast of the subject location and uh St. Joe Road as well. This

1:49:33is a site plan that was submitted with the application, which includes the tower elevation.

1:49:41So this application comes to you with a recommendation of denial. It was and I do want to say just like the other application, the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting. The application was distributed to Omnicom Consulting Group, Mr. Chris Monzingo, who's on who's on here on WebEx. Um Mr. Monzingo stated that um as you know it has to the the the application has to comply with substantive s substantive um requirements of the land development

1:50:12code. In this case the application did not the applicant did not provide um Design standards under 1002.7C, showing that the minimum height necessary to provide the applicant's proposed design service to the area should be utilized as verified by an independent radio frequency analysis. Also did not provide information under 1002.9, 0.8, 0.3, which basically states that they have to submit sufficient materials, plans,

1:50:42graphics, narratives. Expert statement to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of the section. Additionally, under that same section, application for tier three for new towers. Under the review, they have to submit other additional information as may be required to technically verify an applicant's assertions. So Mr. Monzingo, so under expert review 1002.13 also

1:51:13provides in B5 other Met Um I apologize. Based on the results of the expert review the county may require additional information, that's in C. Um that information was not provided to Mr. Montenzingro. So we are recommending that the application be denied. If the Planning Commission so chooses to approve the application, we recommend the alternate motion. Number one, which is to approve the application

1:51:43with conditions as set forth under the recommend recommended conditions section, and then if the Planning Commission decides that they want to direct the Planning and Development Department to another course of action.

1:51:56Okay, Denise, any questions?

1:52:03I guess my question is um uh Um and ma I guess they can answer this as well, but did they indicate that, gee, let us continue it until we can provide that information? Um

1:52:16No, the actual the applicant stated that the and and the applicant can can come up and and state what I'm probably gonna state, which is that some of that information is proprietary, you're not required to submit the information, um, and uh the um the RF consultant did send a denial report which is included in your agenda packet.

1:52:39All right. I have a question.

1:52:40Sure.

1:52:42The ordinance says that when they file an application, they go through a completeness review, and you I don't know, you have 20 days or something like that. Did they go through a completeness review?

1:52:52So, yes, they went through a completeness review and also part of the application, it's actually in the conditional use application. It states that no conditional use application will be accepted without a written county-approved timeline. And phasing andor substandard road analysis or county approved exemption letter. That exemption letter did not, those exemption letters did not come till the end of May. So once that happened, we did a review consolidation for the things that our team knows

1:53:22to review because we're not RF experts and sent all that information to Mr. Monzingo. We all we always send every every application, we send uh that out with a commentary basically

1:53:35stating hold hold on. So the ordinance says that within twenty days of receipt of the application, staff's gonna conduct I think it says shell. Mm-hmm. Conduct a completeness review and if there are items missing it shall notify the applicant of the missing items and then if the applicant resubmits some information and there's still something then you're supposed to send it to them again. Was that done? Yes. Did they get this letter within those times?

1:54:02Yes, they got the letter through a cell and they also got emails.

1:54:05Did those did that completeness review include the request for whatever license it is that they need and the information to determine the necessity for the height of the tower.

1:54:20So we did not know that information was not included because we we as we're not subject matter experts, we don't we're not RF engineers, so we didn't know what to look for other than they provided us an RF package. So when that all that information was review consolidation sent out to the

1:54:38I understand you don't need to make just need to understand h whether due process happened or not. Yes.

1:54:47Okay, any any other questions? Did the Planning Commission want to hear from the Absolute Expert? Yes. Well for sure. Well from I mean from The county's expert, RFA engineer. Do you want to hear from them before they hear from the applicant? Yeah, I'd say yes. And

1:55:03Mr. Monsenko's on Wx.

1:55:07Okay.

1:55:12Yeah.

1:55:13Yeah.

1:55:15Oh yeah, this is uh Chris Monzingo. Uh I'm a RF engineer for Omnicom Consulting Group. I'm uh based in Tallahassee, Florida. I've been doing this type of work for At least twenty five years. I I I quit counting the years for a while. Uh we at Omicom review these same types of applications from for many counties in Florida, Hillsboro County. Saint John's County, Malachwa County, Columbia County. We we do quite a few of these, maybe

1:55:45not as many as as Ms. Donahue does, but this we do do quite a few of these types of reviews. So once I got the information from Denise As usual I go through and and look and see the information that's there that I need. need to conduct uh the analysis that the county wants me to conduct. Which is basically determined if there's actually a need for a tower where they're saying they need a tower. So they did provide some information, but it's very ambiguous. Um For manufacturers

1:56:15that gave me three different equipment manufacturers. Uh they gave me multiple model numbers of radios and they all are different, right? So If I'm gonna do an analysis of RF coverage, they provided RF coverage maps. I have no idea how they produced them because they never gave me that information. I mean specifics. Because all this equipment is not the same.

1:56:37It's not a you know. was trying to inform me of how a WISP operates, wireless internet service provider. I'm very well aware of how this operates. Um, which is what I asked. One of the questions why the coverage maps reference in vehicle coverage. Wireless Internet service provider, typical provider coverage. Internet wireless internet to people's house in rural areas where they may be underserved from say your wire carriers and Pasco County, whether that be via fiber, cable,

1:57:08or D S Line. But at the end of the day I requested uh information Uh they didn't really want to give it up for whatever reason. I get it from Verizon, I get it from T Mobile, I get it from any other applicants. It's not really proprietary information that I request. Um also did after that I did some further research into their S C C licensing. So someone asked that question earlier about SCC licensing. From what I could find, West Orange

1:57:38Wireless only has uh the only S C C license that they currently have. Uh it doesn't mean that they couldn't obtain FCC one. The ones that they currently have is for point to point. Um Communications, sixty gigahertz microwave communications at Pasco County. Now a lot of whisp use unlicensed equipment to deploy their technology as well. Which means you don't have to have an SEC license to do that. Um They

1:58:09never gave me any specifics on any equipment.

1:58:17So therefore you could not make a determination, is that what you're telling us?

1:58:22Uh yeah, so I mean I guess we should start with saying that that West Arms Wireless has no no s sites in Pasco County now. So I guess th whether they need coverage or not is kind of a boot point. If they're gonna have a service in Pasco County, they need they need a tower. Because they don't have any this would be literally be their first uh deployment in Pasco County. So I guess you can make the argument that Whether they put up a twenty foot tower or a hundred and eighty foot tower. It would be better than what they have since

1:58:52they have done. But specifically to validate what they submitted, uh they didn't give me the information I needed to do that.

1:59:03Can I ask him a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of Um Chris. Denise read a section of our code and it says Um the minimum height necessary to provide the applicant's design service to the area should be utilized. Were you able to make that determination based on the information you received?

1:59:25Because they they provided multiple equipment manufacturers. And one, two, three, four, five different frequency bands that they could deploy equipment in. So all All of those have different characteristics when it comes to The way they operate.

1:59:41So let me ask the question differently. Were you able to determine whether this particular service needs a tower? That high.

1:59:52I guess the question is I don't know what particular service they're offering because they didn't give me any

1:59:56I'm asking well yeah, well from from the services that they're licensed for Were you able to determine whether they need a tower this high?

2:00:05So for the license they're for the service they're licensed for, which is a point to point microwave, which would only Literally go from point A to point B. Uh you need you need point A and point B. So they've only provided point A, so I have no idea where they would intend to hook. the other end of their point to point communications to The the the sixty gigahertz license they have for point to point communications is for backhaul would not provide uh they couldn't provide their WISP

2:00:35service with that license.

2:00:40What are we here?

2:00:45for actual service to the community.

2:00:52Okay, thank you.

2:00:54Just gonna suggest that we should hear from them so that we understand what the proposal is but we're trying to we haven't really heard what they're yeah right trying to do.

2:01:04Okay. So do you have them present?

2:01:11Could you please restate your name and address, please?

2:01:18Good afternoon. Um Deborah Martahue, Martahue Landislaw. Um Is there a cli uh this is the clicker, sorry. Sounds like I have an up the hill battle

2:01:29today.

2:01:30Um let me share that today I have the owner of the North American Towers with me, um Tim O'Shaughnessy, he's been up here. I have Chris Chesky, who's the owner and principal of West Orange Wireless, who is our co-applicant. I have Gary Brundage who is with Brundage Association uh associates and he was our site acquisition uh specialist, the owners of the property won. Ronald and Anna Dumlap are also here today. Um since everybody seems to be pretty focused on why we

2:02:00need this tower, um and so am I pointing at the wrong place?

2:02:10It's not working. There we go. Is that working now? Okay. Um I'm just gonna I I think Everybody we can stipulate that the issue seems to be whether or not we're a communications provider that falls within the parameters of your code and under federal law entitled to provide service in your county. So I'm just going to go through some of the zoning conditions really quick since we have limited time. Um but I do want to point out how heavily

2:02:40wooded our site was and how we were told at pre-app that you know landscape waiver would not be approved by the zoning administrator because the board does not is not receptive to those things. So we did not apply. But If you wanna wave that at the end, um if you see fit, we're certainly um would be would accept that condition. Again, here's our we're about fift uh two hundred and fifty feet south of Bent Fork Road. We've met all of the site development standards. We're

2:03:11not asking for any um uh variances or alternative standards for any portion of your code. So it's all a matter of record and I'm not gonna waste a whole lot of time.

2:03:22Can you go back to that person 'cause I have a question.

2:03:25So your tower, unlike the prior tower we saw, is not showing any Antennas sort of emanating out from the pole. Will there be towers

2:03:37emanating? No, this is a mitigated. We we went by your code since visual impact is a policy in your code that is emphasized. We elected to put in a mitigated tower where all of the antennas will be wholly concealed. We will be using ventilated the new technology as of February. This year by RayCap, the ventilated um uh canisters to allow proper ventilation of the radio equipment.

2:04:03I have a follow-up question that so we're dealing with uh we actually dealt with another case that was this similar type of a tower that was being um they they could no longer use it because the space inside the tower wouldn't house the newer age antennas. Uh and when we were having to build another tower nearby and there was a whole case about that because the existing flagpole tower wouldn't have

2:04:28Is that a potential for a future issue with this tower as well as technology changes and

2:04:34I don't know like the date of that and whether or not there were I'm assuming that flagpole didn't have ventilated canisters, that's why I mentioned the van. And I did provide that information to Chris Manzinga um immediately. Um and it is very new technology. in response to the overheating issues. It's really the radio equipment, not the antennas that overheat and the new 5G technology when the radios are placed right next to the antennas. Um that

2:05:05can cause the problem. Um you can solve the problem by putting the radios in a different canister in those types of uh flagpoles, not knowing the specific of that flagpole and if they have the additional canister capacity, I can't speak to that. But you know

2:05:20Well, one of the issues was the space. Uh the s the actual size of the antennas wouldn't fit inside the space of space constraints of the existing tower. So I was just wondering from from future proofing if this was going to be an issue in the future where as technology improves the antennas get even larger than what they are now where they wouldn't fit inside this tower.

2:05:40Certainly. I mean we're open to doing a monopole as well. We were again trying follow the rules of your code and mitigate any visual impact. But if you would like to approve a monopole in lieu of the Unipol, we're fine with that as well. Okay, I was just

2:05:55curious 'cause it came up in a previous case.

2:05:57I understand.

2:05:58Well, I guess So do you know whether Pave Horizon or T Mobile or um RT ⁇ T would actually co-locate on this type of tower.

2:06:12Um Do you want me to stop my presentation and have the owner come up and talk to that?

2:06:17I don't.

2:06:17Okay. Actually. Or can we ask the afterwards?

2:06:21Well I can ask the guy from Verizon if he wants.

2:06:26Yeah.

2:06:27I would appreciate having my consultants speak to the

2:06:32I'm okay if your consultants want to answer the qu I don't care who answers the question. I guess I need to know whether if we approve this tower, 'cause it it potentially with co locations, I wanna know how realistic it is that A Verizon T Mobile, ATT, which are the three major Providers would actually use it. Does

2:06:50it matter

2:06:51if it's one of the

2:06:51three majors so

2:06:53long as

2:06:53the carrier is licensed?

2:06:58Mm-hmm.

2:06:58I think it does matter because It goes to the very issue why the consultant recommended denial, which is because It's also recommended to Nile because he doesn't think that West Orange Wireless needs a tower this tall. So but if A T and T and or Verizon or or T Mobile w need a tower this tall and can use it, that's a different conversation.

2:07:22I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. The problem is I haven't heard anybody yet tell me One, who is West Orange Wireless? And I'm gonna have a whole bunch of questions about that. And what services is it that West Orange Wireless provides? Is this cell phone service? Is this internet service? Is this point-to-point microwaves? I don't know what it is. I think we should probably let her that's the first one.

2:07:47Yeah, let's go let her finish. I just want I wanted to find out what they were proposing. So they've they've answered. You'll have an

2:07:53opportunity just to wait.

2:07:55Go she can finish. Go ahead. Go ahead.

2:07:58Thank you. So again, we we were proposing uh our clients will use this tower. It's got the new technology. We're proposing the ventilated canisters.

2:08:12My clients are West Orange Wireless and North American Towers. We're utilizing RayCap. Um that's the

2:08:19Okay, so And I apologize for interrupting. Is West Orange wireless are they s a cellular phone carrier? Are they an internet carrier? What do they do? Who are

2:08:29they? Can I get to that? And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I would like to I'll present that. Thank you.

2:08:40So we're just we met nobody has issues with TEPAC surrounding Land uses. This is where uh we have the photo sims Uh you can see you can't see the tower. Um barely see it there. And the the locations, everything is in your your um your package. You can barely see it there. And you can't see it there. Regardless of whether or not it's a monopole or

2:09:10a unipole. Um this shows the distance the nearest which goes to everybody in this area to show you that it's it's a communications defic deficit no matter what communication services you're providing, the nearest tower is 4.2 miles away, 4.29 miles away. Um, everybody we speak to, the community meetings, everybody is complaining not only about mobile service, but the lack of internet service. The lack of internet service.

2:09:43No speaking from the

2:09:44audience please?

2:09:47So um with respect to um

2:09:54your questions about what

2:09:58Sorry, now I've had so many um what your code uh actually requires and what the definitions are. Um wireless um facilities are fiscal structures, the equipment, the antennas, it's not the providers. You have to provide a co applicant um to permit wireless um They they have to be the uh personal wireless communications provider. uh any proposed tenants and the owner. We've

2:10:28done all that. Your communications provider for purposes of tier three and uh tier one and tier three, which is what we are, is a communications service provider authorized by the FCC to provide commercial wireless communications such as broadcasting, mobile, paging, cellular, WiMax. Um, it's not limited just to the ones that you're talking about. T Mobile, Sprint well Sprint. But but and that's why I'm going through it. Okay? I it

2:10:59it's a much broader definition which is which is married to the federal um the federal definition, which also encompasses all of those definitions and unlicensed wireless providers. Unlicensed and I will say when I read Mr. Mongzinga's report We felt like criminals. We're deploying unlicensed equipment. We're deploying unlicensed

2:11:29um wireless communications and I realize I'm not the RF engineer and I realize how that might be perceived by the decision makers that oh my god we're out here and we're giving services that we're not licensed to do. That's not the case. Not every um license spectrum is very expensive. And why WISPs, that terminology that's being used, is deployed in the rural areas, is to offer a competitive, more economical

2:11:59solution to um to the residents and businesses in the area to get communication services is they're not buying up all that very, very expensive licensed spectrum. But I'll get to that when the c consultant comes, but I hope that's a good preview for why we're here.

2:12:16So Mark, so just explain to me,

2:12:18are you

2:12:19providing Self service, internet service, paging. What what

2:12:25I'm gonna ha I I I feel I have my ca the the the owner and I think that he's the best person to answer that and if I could get to that segment of my presentation I think we'll be able to answer all of the questions. Thank you. So design service and the reason that after we we provided everything on the tier three checklist. that was required to be provided and why I on behalf of the client started to object. Um first of all the comments came very late

2:12:56in the game. They were due on June 15th. On June 16, I got an email saying no further questions. On June 18th it became changed my mind. We have all these other questions. By the when we did have a determination of completeness on June 5th by staff, by operation of state statute, our determination of completeness was April 20th. because they have shot clocks as well. And if no further deficiency comments were issued after

2:13:26our response on on April twentieth, that's the end. That's when you're deemed complete. And there's all kinds of shot clocks that apply. Okay. And the design service, the reason I objected, is in your own code under the definition. It says the configuration and manner of deployment of the service that the communications provider has designed for an area of part of its network. The type and LOS to be provided is not part of design service and is

2:13:56not part of the county's review. of the wireless communications. facility. And to that end, in the same section of the definitions of your code, the standards say, item number 22 of David's Definition number 22 of David's following along. It says standards. Guidelines are measured to provided by in this section, which by which acceptability of a wireless facility application is determined. Wireless communication facilities are measured

2:14:27by standards measuring visual impact or safety, which we addressed, the design of the tower. Wireless Planning generally regulates wireless communication facilities on three levels. Location, In parent it says where the the wireless communication facility site can go. We've complied with that, all the regulations. how the wireless communication facility is placed within its setting. We did that with the sighting and the site plan and design what

2:14:57the wireless communication facility looks like. That's it. It's the end of the review. And Wait. We personally thought if we're the first if this is the first time That West Horn Orange Wireless is entering into your county This isn't a capacity site. I mean, Verizon apparently it's a coverage and capacity site. This is a coverage site for us. And maybe

2:15:28this might be the good point to bring, here's the definition, taking cut and paste from your code. To go ahead and bring um Mr. Jesky up here, so I could ask him. who he is, who the company is, all the information that we provided. So if you could state your name to the record.

2:15:49Name and address, Mr. Jesky, please.

2:15:51Thank you. It's Chris Jeske. My address is [address removed]. I appreciate your time today. You can tip that. Mickup

2:16:03if you need.

2:16:04You just

2:16:05grab the top part

2:16:05of it.

2:16:07Well that's okay. If the this is gonna go quicker if I just ask him questions, um, if you don't mind. Are you the owner of West Orange Wireless? Yes. Okay. Are do you are you incorporated in the state of Florida? Yes. Yes. Are you authorized and recognized by the FCC as communications provider?

2:16:27Yes.

2:16:28Do you deploy unlicensed um and licensed equipment des like you're the

2:16:38Yes, so we we use a combination of both licensed and unlicensed frequencies to deliver a service. We're primarily a broadband services provider, so What I mean by that is that we just provide internet access. We do it to residential and businesses and enterprises around the country. We operate a hybrid fiber and wireless network between our towers. And we deliver last what we call last mile service or actual internet access to the residences and businesses via what's

2:17:08called fixed wireless. Small antenna that sits on the exterior of the property, it points to a tower. Uh it operates over unlicensed and or lightly licensed frequencies. Uh and I think that's a good thing.

2:17:20And you're uh and you're certified to deploy that type of equipment.

2:17:23I I I personally, yes, I'm a certified professional installer by uh Wincom.

2:17:29Can you tell the board members where you currently operate and what your plans are for operating.

2:17:35As of right now we have sites and customers in Orange County, Lee County, Osceola County, and now we're expanding to Pasco and Hernando County.

2:17:45Um if you could since this is a I'm sorry, since this is a coverage site, this is your first site here. What what would be your ideal height to to provide?

2:17:59So uh I know there's the issue of height is a tricky one because as an unlicensed uh as as a as a provider who uses unlicensed frequencies, we'd we'd love to be as high as we possibly can. Our tallest site in Orange County is four hundred feet above ground, but there's a whole lot of you know red tape that comes along with a site that high. Um so traditionally speaking Um most uh tower providers like to stay away from the FAA regulations and lighting and all that all that sort of stuff that comes with being above two hundred feet above ground level. So uh 185

2:18:30makes sense from us because it gives us that it it gives us that that height to provide coverage um while also staying kind of afoul of some of those uh apart from some of those other regulations.

2:18:40Can I can I stop you right there because I want to quit? So The higher you it's point to point. You're you're broadcasting to a somebody's got like a receiving at their home, they've got something receiving your signal, right? So technically speaking,

2:18:56these the the the radios that I was talking about before that exist on the properties, those are considered po point to multi point. So the point to point radios that um Mr. Menzinga was talking about before that we have licensure for, those are as he said, he's correctly asserted that they're backhaul antennas. So they're backhaul radius. So they go from point A to point B to move traffic there, from places where we have fiber uh to places where we don't have fiber. So what

2:19:23I'm asking is what what what's in the home that's receiving your signal?

2:19:26So the radio exists on the exterior of the property, we mount it to the exterior of the home, uh we run a cable to a wireless router that sits inside the home, and then we distribute it in the home that way.

2:19:36You could liken that to like the little dish from dish network.

2:19:40Similarly. Is you're you're saying that the higher up you are you can get to more homes, is that why you need to be higher? I don't know f I don't know how you worked to I mean are you saying if if you were low you you if you were you can't go like

2:19:54most of our sorry, I don't mean to interrupt but I

2:19:55just Can trees interrupt your signal? I mean what what what what stops your signal from getting to the home?

2:20:02Yes, so uh again we we work on a combination of uh unlicensed and lightly licensed frequencies. The lightly licensed frequencies are the C BRS frequencies that uh have been submitted uh to Mr. Menzinger for his review. Uh they go through trees a little bit better, uh, but by and large we prefer clear shots where it's line of sight from one house to the Power.

2:20:22So you're trying to be up high to get clear of the tree. That's correct. So But if somebody has a tree in front of their house, then you could they can still would they just put it up on their roof is that or like how do

2:20:33you Yeah, so either either they're up on a roof, we've had people that have constructed uh actual like tell like T V antenna towers that you know pretty popular way back when. Um they they mounted those forty foot forty foot towers on the side of their house. It i it really just depends on the actual location.

2:20:49So you're broadcasting the internet to homes that may not have internet from may not have fiber or Cable. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. And what is your source of the internet? Like how are you getting the internet to your broadcasting source?

2:21:05So I'm I I I could get into a really technical discussion. Um Give me the layperson's version. Pardon me? Give me the layperson's version. The layperson version is that we uh through our network, um we we we we take the the internet and we move it over fiber back to our data center that we have in Orlando. And that's where we pick up.

2:21:22Are you gonna have a fiber?

2:21:26Potentially, yes. You see potential. I'm I'm that's what I'm asking, is is if you're trying to provide internet to a bunch of homes in this area. But

2:21:35if the tower exists then you would run a fire. That's correct. Yeah.

2:21:42Okay, so you might pick somebody who has

2:21:43spectrum.

2:21:44You might pick up internet from a frontier or Spectrum, Take their internet and then broadcast. I think

2:21:51what

2:21:51he's

2:21:52saying is that they're gonna use their pipe. Not necessarily their service they're gonna borrow their pack extra capacity in their fiber system.

2:22:00Exactly. So we we lease fiber from uh from the major carriers, uh whoever happens to have it in the ground at near a site that we're at, and we just route all that traffic back to our data center in Orlando.

2:22:11And if there's a small distance between and you guys pay for the the connection I would assume. Uh we we pay a lot for this connection.

2:22:18Have you confirmed that fiber is there or or do you have to get on a fifty two to get it or where where's the closest fiber in that?

2:22:24I I haven't I haven't done a study to determine that yet.

2:22:26Okay.

2:22:29And just to clarify based on your code, and I didn't highlight it on this slide, I apologize, wireless communications is the transfer of data information through the air using wireless facilities. Is that what you do? Chris Jeske.

2:22:45Yes.

2:22:46Okay. I'm not aware. But that is um I I just I I hear a lot of concerns. We're new and and I understand that. I understand this is a little bit of an education process which is why I'm not sure.

2:23:04doing some research on my own, including into your own company. my suspicion here is that we have an ordinance and a consultant and possibly staff And Not to lay blame upon them, but we have technology that is evolving faster than they are. This is something that our ordinance didn't contemplate, that the staff has never seen, maybe the RF engineer does not understand. I suspect that's what we have. This

2:23:34is something that's new to me and I'll tell you it's actually fascinating 'cause I can I can't get fiber in my neighborhood.

2:23:41Than thank you, Commissioner Moody, because

2:23:44Sir, the you this is Chris. Uh I'm well aware of this technology. It's not really that new. Um, but he's doing it after a while, perhaps uh, you know, said in my report. He's probably going to deploy unlicensed point and multi-point technology. I simply asked for the specifics of the equipment so that I could find a uh model of coverage and that information was not the last.

2:24:11Actually that information was

2:24:15then all

2:24:16right.

2:24:16I respectfully disagree with Mr. Monsinga that that information was provided on a technical data um and We just received his analysis last week. I have prepared or Mr. Jeske prepared a point-by-point response to his concerns. I will be uh they it's already on a flash drive, it was already included. I'm gonna submit and ask for you to accept that into the record. It includes Mr. Mongzinga's certified professional installer of

2:24:46CBRS devices. And go ahead.

2:24:57And I wanted to ask Mr. Jesky to tell the board I don't want to speak for you, but that you use a lot of different types of equipment to deploy your services, correct? Okay, can you go ahead and do that?

2:25:10Yeah, so w this is Chris Jeske again for the record. Uh we uh as as Ms. Money said, we we use a lot of different equipment um in a lot of different places. It depends on uh well, realistically speaking, it depends a lot on the site itself. So Um some sites will we have higher equipment at, we use different radios because we have that height. Um some sites we're you know we're we're constrained by um you know dimensions, right? So we have to use smaller equipment

2:25:40or smaller radios to you know to accommodate.

2:25:42So why the hundred and eighty five feet height here? What's how's how do you come up with that height?

2:25:49So as previous uh As I as I previously stated, um w we would go we would like to go as high as we possibly could. Um but staying under two hundred feet AGL keeps you uh AGL above ground level, sorry. Uh it it it keeps you out of the additional red tape that's associated with having to uh get FA certification and lights and and and all that sort of stuff that goes along with it. So you'd be happy with

2:26:14Below two hundred feet then.

2:26:16Yes. Thank you.

2:26:19This is Chris Montlingo again. So I got to show him in this point. I was asking for the specifics on how the coverage acts to generate. You didn't generate those coverage maps, uh Mr. Chris, the other Chris there, with multiple pieces of equipment if there were specific pieces of equipment antennas that had to be utilized to generate those coverage maps.

2:26:40So the uh this is Chris Chesky again for the record. Uh the coverage maps that were submitted uh were you were were generated using Google's network planner software and it was generated using the antennas the in that we predominantly that we predominantly use in the lightly licensed and CBRS spaces.

2:27:00Does that answer your question?

2:27:01So that information was never provided. That was the only thing I would left.

2:27:06Okay, I I can't speak to that, I'm sorry.

2:27:09I'm sorry Chris, if you did not receive that map. I I I don't know what to say. It was absolutely I don't think

2:27:15we're saying he didn't receive the map. He just he didn't receive the information that he just testified to.

2:27:31I can't control what you received. I can control that we submitted not once but twice the f with our original application we submitted all of that data. We had a deficiency response um that said we didn't list WOW as our co-applicant in a CELA. although it was on our application, it was on our project narrative. And then I was told after all of that was submitted that we had to put it in an RF package.

2:28:02So we were s resubmitted it All the same information a second time on April 20th as an RF package. I can't control what got transmitted to you or if it did or didn't, but it absolutely was transmitted. I prepared myself, I made sure that every single item on that checklist was addressed. The only thing we didn't address was Beam tilt because we were using canisters

2:28:33and when you use canisters you don't tilt your antennas like when you're on a monopole. You have the room to tilt. Maybe that helps answer your questions. Okay,

2:28:43so

2:28:43Commissioner

2:28:44Weight Cut this short. I want to get to the heart of the issue because our consultant said he just heard information, regardless of whether he why he didn't get it, he just heard information for the first time that apparently is useful to him.

2:28:59Okay.

2:29:00So My question to you, Chris, is now that you have that information Does that change your opinion? Or can you can you now do what you need to do? And if so, how long would you need to do it?

2:29:15Well, I still need more specifics, right? So at least I get the frequency back. Uh but I mean

2:29:26I think he needs a list of equipment.

2:29:33Chris, we've lost you.

2:29:36But didn't you say that? He he said he provided a list of equipment and and I'm not gonna get into whether he did or he didn't or whether the guy got it or didn't get it and Lord knows I'd play enough around with a cellar too that, you know, sometimes things happen.

2:29:52It

2:29:53sounds to me.

2:29:54Yes.

2:29:56Okay, I just had the turn that's it all but spin along there. Um again For an RM engineer to generate coverage maps, you need specifics

2:30:09about set equipment and received signal levels and things like that. I can generate anything, but it wouldn't be accurate. Without knowing which of the three pieces of uh three different manufacturers

2:30:22that they listed, six different frequency bands, which ones they're going to use. And what's what's the receiving you don't have the house phone meeting? And there's proceedings that have to be given before a coverage matter can

2:30:35be generated. Isn't that a moot point? Isn't it a moot point? The guy doesn't have any service here to begin with today. He doesn't have any coverage. Any coverage he puts is now coverage on the map. After that when he's trying to justify new towers. Well yeah.

2:30:55Thank you. Thank you because that is the point I've been trying to make with this application from day one. that we will take any height. And the higher the better. As he has said, his equipment doesn't play well with trees and he needs, you know, distances. He has towers in other counties that are 400 feet where he's co-located 400 feet. Who I don't wanna repeat, but I actually and in and as a threshold issue, again, your own code doesn't

2:31:25even authorize and I understand past practices that this is what you do and I can't I'm not gonna be every other lawyer that, you know, why some lawyers or companies submit this, that or the other thing. But you're I'm just going by your code. This is not part of the evaluation. And it it it says that the consultant is not authorized to evaluate the type and level of service that is going to be provided by this per um. Well

2:31:54that's why I put that up on the screen before. Can you put that back up? I think that's important.

2:32:00Sorry.

2:32:02Well I I guess if I if I can add something here, I I guess I'm I'm kinda hearing things out of both sides of their mouth as we go through the last hour that I've been sitting here. I mean we're sitting here on their application and we're saying Oh yeah, well just because it's said in the code that doesn't mean we have to provide it. Okay, for our for our benefit. It's not applicable here, but then they're gonna stand up for the prior case and they're gonna say, wait a second, the code says they gotta submit for alternative standard. I mean how are they not speaking out of both sides of their mouth here? I mean, the county asked them to submit something. Did they submit it or not? Chris

2:32:32as the expert or the reviewer for the county said he didn't get it. So what's the problem? Submit the stuff that the guy asked for. Well I'm missing the point.

2:32:49It's the same code, but Okay. The code as I read it, Mr. Goldstein, who's the authority on his code, disagrees with me.

2:32:57You interpreted it the way you wanted to interpret it. That's really what happened. Both cases. In my opinion. Okay, now we can move on. That's we both said our point.

2:33:06But I am looking at your code and your code does not authorize this type of evaluation. That's not to say that we did not provide all of the base information that was on the tier three checklist, except for the beam tilt, because we're gonna be in canisters. There is no beam tilt. And I actually put an A on that. because if you're in a canister you don't tilt your antennas like you do if you're um on a monopole. So with exterior mounted

2:33:36antennas, we certainly um we're open to being a monopole. Again, we were trying to mitigate our visual impact. We're not

2:33:47Chaos in a perfect world, what would you prefer? A monopole or a canister?

2:33:54A perfect world of monopoles.

2:34:00Uh probably four hundred feet, but but but but we're okay at two we're at okay at one eighty five to

2:34:06two minutes.

2:34:09Right procedures

2:34:10to go through that or or would it be preferable to say that it's

2:34:13yeah, we're fine.

2:34:17I I don't think you can be giving them a higher height. Yeah,

2:34:20you'd have to you'd have to go back to the application process

2:34:22for it. Right. So we're

2:34:24but yes You can change the design of the poles. But don't I don't you shouldn't be offering them a higher height than what they got an FA.

2:34:33I

2:34:33want

2:34:34to be clear with you, you can't give them a higher height, that's what I'm trying to say. Okay.

2:34:38Uh I'm hoping and I'm assuming, uh, Commissioner, that you're just saying that in the sense that We are asking for what we really need um to address the height issue, I guess.

2:34:50If we're considering approval or denial or conditional approval of the application, it would be nice to know what you want. So that's that's what I was just trying to get to the crux of what's what?

2:35:01Well, uh let me just quote one of the old songs I grew up with. You can't always get what you want. And we were just trying to you know, be respectful of our location, what your code requires, our own, you know, type of approval processes above and beyond what we are doing here politically. Um so anyways, here's a search area that was given to Mr. Manzinga. Our propagation map was given to Mr.

2:35:31Manzinga. Um the standards, the conditional use standards, I I think we can agree that I hope there's no statement in the staff report that says we're not consistent with the comprehensive plan from a zoning standpoint. Um We're not

2:35:56The quality of the neighborhood. Um, we're consistent with the character and the surrounding area. Again, we offered a mitigated example of the tower. We're not, it's an unmanned facility, there's no increased traffic or parking congestion. We're providing, we're meeting all the code standards with respect to drainage, access, and grease, etc. etc. We are going to be providing the screening and the buffering, unless you choose today to offer us the same waiver or the opportunity

2:36:26to go through an alternative standard process, whatever your preference is. Clearly we're very heavily vegetated on Mr. Dunlat's property, but we're good either way. Um the proposed conditions will otherw were not adversely affecting the health safety or welfare. I think today between our two applications you've clearly heard there is a communications desert in this area. People the our complaint uh um uh at our two community meetings

2:36:56that we had. was that people don't have communication services, including internet. including internet. Um because your internet provider that's out here they don't want to spend the money to just go ahead and connect one or two homes because it's very sparse out there. We're also trying to plan for and the reason this area was targeted was the future Amazon Distribution Center. This area I think by having these two applications on your agenda

2:37:28today and recognize this area is poised for development because it's going to become an employment center and people are going to move to it and they're going to need all types of communication services. So I would hope Based on these two applications that would be a given uh in terms of um an understanding by everybody in the room. So we meet all the conditional um standards. Um I talked about the recent um conditions um I had

2:37:58submitted all these recent conditions of approval again. I've had to digest a lot since last uh July 26th and I want to thank all of your clerks in the county who have been unbelievably responsive to my requests for documents to try to understand what has been the past practices in this county, what to expect. They have done yeoman's work and I appreciate it. And what I discovered is

2:38:29the standard conditions of approval c for communication towers Don't look like our conditions of approval and and the one that you just uh saw. We certainly are receptive. Um and and also I do want to note in twenty-two forty Z B C C resolution. Uh this county has analyzed communication networks of others besides the Sprint T Mobiles etcetera of the world. They

2:38:59they analyze it.

2:39:02Yes. So if

2:39:04if we're to approve there's a there's an alternate if we are to

2:39:07approve

2:39:07your application with some proposed conditions.

2:39:09See I

2:39:10got a problem with some of these.

2:39:12Uh one, two, three, and four are unlawful, unenforceable, and discriminatory on their face. I have no idea how we would ever provide Uh we can't provide you customer data. We can't I I don't even know how we're going to prove how many Is

2:39:28there anywhere in our code where it says they have to support, they have to supply, they have to provide service to a minimum of thirty percent in the residences. Is Verizon obligated to provide service to thirty percent of the residences in the service area for the tower we just approved?

2:39:43Mr. Mooney, there is nothing in our code. Let me just the the conditions come from it's a deficient application.

2:39:50What does that have to do with if if there's if there's information missing, what does them proving they provide service to thirty percent of the households have to do with missing information?

2:40:00They have asked us to review the application regardless of the deficiency, so that these are the conditions. So where

2:40:05in the code does it say that any service provider

2:40:08The code basically says that I'm not supposed to even pre bring this to you for your reviews.

2:40:13Why would why I'm asking why would such a condition be I I I think I'll

2:40:18try to answer your question. I think the consultant was trying to come up with conditions To demonstrate that they're meeting the coverage maps that they submitted. That's the intent of the second condition. Well

2:40:30Verizon can

2:40:31have coverage in my neighborhood, but that doesn't obligate me to be a customer, even though I am a customer.

2:40:37Well the problem I think there is

2:40:40a difference.

2:40:42The problem the RF advisor is having it seems to me is that he's saying, Well there's a coverage map but how do I know that how they arrived at that coverage 'cause I don't know what equipment they're using. And she you're saying you're not gonna provide that equipment information.

2:40:58Chairman Gray, if I could speak to that just for a moment.

2:41:01Please

2:41:02please make it

2:41:02brief.

2:41:05I have been doing this since nineteen ninety-seven.

2:41:07I don't want

2:41:08a history

2:41:08lesson. I just want to know why you can't provide that information.

2:41:15is that every wireless consultant that is hired by any jurisdiction to evaluate our uh level of service, if that's even allowed, which let's just put that aside, Um they do not have the proprietary software, the methodology, the customer data, the predictive customer data. They are making an educated guess. There is not one provider in the city. How

2:41:39is he gonna determine whether your map Is there a real map? If he

2:41:44doesn't

2:41:44know what what equipment you're using, does it have a

2:41:47question is how can he determine that for any communications provider? Because he knows

2:41:52what equipment they're using.

2:41:53There is not a communications provider. That's a

2:41:56requirement of our code.

2:41:58It is

2:41:59that you provide the question.

2:42:01There is not but that is not the only thing that goes into it doesn't matter,

2:42:06it's in there. It's part of our code.

2:42:08Uh if Chairman, Chairman, that is not the only thing that is evaluated when you produce a propagation map. There is customer data, predictive customer data, there's software methodology, there's proprietary information. There is not a provider in the world. or at least in the state of Florida that I've worked with.

2:42:30I'm sorry?

2:42:31Did you provide to him a list of the equipment you were

2:42:34Yes we did twice.

2:42:35He says that he didn't get it. Why don't you just provide it?

2:42:38We did twice.

2:42:42Drive it there. I don't care how you get it there.

2:42:45Submit a copy to the clerk, it's in the record.

2:42:48Move to

2:42:49receive and file.

2:42:50Thank you. Okay.

2:42:54Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?

2:43:01Can I ask a quick question? Sure. It's a simple question really, I hope.

2:43:06You say you cannot provide the number or anticipate the number of customers you may have here in Pasco County. How many customers do you currently have in your areas now?

2:43:17Um

2:43:17It's a simple question. Thousands.

2:43:20It's not a simple question because

2:43:22You mean you don't know how many customers you currently have?

2:43:25We have no customers in Pasco County.

2:43:27I didn't ask about Pasco County. I said your total number of customers you currently have.

2:43:34What? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you're asking for a customer.

2:43:37I don't care who answers the question, it's a simple question. How many customers do you have on your books that pay you a monthly fee for your service? I'm not comfortable answering that question right now, sir. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. You you talked about fiber optics. Well well oh

2:43:54hold on, hold on, John.

2:44:02Yeah, you decline you decline. I can just let me wait, wait, you've had a close to an hour and a half. And I've been very patient. You talked about

2:44:11some of the best

2:44:12fiber optics. Are you anticipating using fiber optics system and then people have to buy some type of apparatus for them to pick up your service?

2:44:21So uh Chris Jeske again for the record. Uh so

2:44:26The answer is yes but no. Um so the we u we again we use fiber to connect our towers, okay? And then we we place a a radio antenna on the home of the of the subscriber.

2:44:39So the people have to purchase either rent or purchase a piece of equipment to obtain your service.

2:44:44We we provide that as part of the service.

2:44:46Okay. Uh simple questions. Simple person. Thank you.

2:44:51Chairman Chairman Gray, I wasn't trying to give you a history lesson but tell you that I've represented T Mobile since nineteen ninety eight.

2:44:58Before they were T M Oak before you represented them. I'm just asking if you complied with our code in terms of giving him the list. You said, Well you sent it twice and he didn't get it. Well send it three times then.

2:45:11I I'm not the person who transmits it. The staff is the person who transmits it.

2:45:16You can't blame this our staff. The staff is the one that got the letter for you from the FAA.

2:45:21That's the right-of-way.

2:45:22You didn't even have a you had a two-year-old letter.

2:45:25That that's not correct.

2:45:27So I transmitted that information to Mr. Monzingo and that was not sufficient for his review. He actually replied to that and explained how that was not sufficient. So what she's stating that she transmitted, I sent that to Mr. Monzingo.

2:45:40Right. And then you reached out and got a current current letter, is that correct?

2:45:44Um that is another uh another thing when I and I really don't want to get into that, but if you'd like I can't Which is when they first submitted their application, they submitted an FAA determination that was about three years expired. It was from 2020. And I was asked to, I went to the I have it in writing, I could show it on the screen. Um I went I contacted the FAA first by phone then by email asking them if they would please look into it and like probably within the An hour they said that it had already been determined,

2:46:15and I asked Miss Martahue to access her F that her F FAA record and immediately she sent it to me and they sent me a new determination. But I mean if since you mentioned it.

2:46:26It had been issued that day. What we submitted, like just like the prior applicant, is they knew their FAA. AA was expired, I don't believe ours was expired by three years. We had applied in twenty twenty and it had expired just before we had submitted and then we submitted an aeronautical study clearing us for those moving

2:46:49on.

2:46:49Any

2:46:49other questions?

2:46:50So I I one more that was um Kind of the the other thing I'm gonna think about too. So we just approved another application just up the road. Uh is there any reason why you couldn't co locate with that tower that was just approved?

2:47:04I guess the question from me would be is there any reason the other um company couldn't co locate on ours when we have been first in line through every part of this application process. We have just had to jump through a whole lot of the right-of-way. I don't think it's not

2:47:19legally required to because you're more than the fifteen hundred foot distance that is required by code, but but just a simple question.

2:47:27My my answer is Is there a reason they can't co-locate on our tower when we were first in line? You keep saying you're first in line, but you didn't complete

2:47:38your application

2:47:38correctly. Sorry, I'm correct. Chris Chesky for the record, I have another answer for that question. It's because Verizon will be at one eighty eight uh from one eighty eight to one seventy eight on their tower and will be at one eighty five on this tower.

2:47:50But isn't their site ten feet higher than your site?

2:47:54I'm uh three feet. Three feet. Right, so th so they're requesting one eighty five.

2:48:00I'm I'm talking about the I'm talking about the ground elevation. Three

2:48:03feet. Yeah, one

2:48:03one. Not the height of the tower. Not the height of the tower. No, what the

2:48:06we're doing.

2:48:06The ground elevation.

2:48:09The elevations at the first sight are at one twenty and this is at about one ten.

2:48:14If I may, the elevation of that tower was one eighty, it's just the eight foot is a lightning rod.

2:48:20Still didn't answer Jamie's question. Thank you. He's talking talking about the absolute elevation of the top of the tower.

2:48:29So don't you achieve the same thing by being on ground that's ten feet higher with a ten feet shorter tower? If I understand your technology correctly the way you've answered it, or the way you've given us answers?

2:48:40Uh yes, but again Horizon would take in the top spot. So maybe we'd be ten feet. I think ten, fifteen feet lower.

2:48:50Again, but the absolute elevation would be the same. So just so everybody understands.

2:48:58But you'd be at the same elevation.

2:49:01So could uh it's so your your coverage map that you showed and you quickly went over it. Um if you could go back to that.

2:49:11I mean it's you know, the primary propagation is an area that's pretty desolate right now. It's agriculture. So you're taking a big bet on the future. So kinda to to Derek's question about that is is there limitations in the type of pole that you're gonna put in of others co locating with you? You know, for example there's another the monopole option that's that's up the road right there. I mean are they gonna go jump on that before they before they even consider yours given the flexibility of the monopole i mean which

2:49:41leads to the pinch of liability and maybe that's a better question for the tower operator and

2:49:45I think and I'm gonna have them come up but I I uh for the record I want to say the closest tower right now is four point two m nine miles away and so even if they jumped on this tower that you're describing they would still need to be in this area and this design would accommodate um any any provider should they want to choose, but I'm gonna let Mister O'Shaughnessy, who operates with all these different providers, as he earlier said, he's for all of them. He's not um against any of them.

2:50:15No, I understand. But we just approved that at tower, so that

2:50:19Can I ask a question that may get to the point you're making? Um

2:50:25'Cause we heard earlier that Towers is not just a coverage issue, it's also a capacity issue. So the question would be Is having two towers in this area I guess my question would all probably be for Verizon. At some point is it possible they would need two antennas in this area for capacity reasons. Can I ask, is it okay if I ask Brian that question? It's okay with me.

2:50:53Can I it's your it's your hearing. Can I ask you that? Clearly. I'm talking to you you sir, the one you just Yes. Forget your name.

2:51:00I'm not seeing my biggest counseling.

2:51:03Uh well, whoever's the expert is from Verizon.

2:51:08I've done this is James Johnston. I'm with Shutzen Bowen in Orlando at 300 South Orange Avenue. Uh I represent Verizon Wireless and I've told him not to answer this because he has not looked at this tower, he has not looked at this area, he has not evaluated anything, he's not here on behalf of them as an expert. So I've instructed him not to answer those questions. Thank you.

2:51:31Okay, then I'll ask who's your expert?

2:51:35As we stated earlier, um we're open to all we design this tower for co locations.

2:51:42Okay, but I'm asking I want who which one is your expert in RF in your group?

2:51:47This this is this is our co-applicant that is a wireless communications provider.

2:51:55But I with all the respect we don't have an expert here that can answer that question.

2:52:04Trying to help you. Would have been. My question was is there a possibility that as this area intensifies in population I don't know if it ever will, but if it does that you might need two towers to serve it from a capacity standpoint, because we heard earlier that that it's not just a coverage issue that when you have enough people connecting to a tower, sometimes you need multiple towers to serve them from a capacity standpoint. That's my question, but apparently nobody can answer. I uh

2:52:31well I c I can't speak for Verizon because I'm not familiar with their their their their cellular propagation, their cellular maps and all that sort of stuff, but Logic would dictate that yes, I would expect so. I I'm sorry, but I yes, I believe so.

2:52:48Uh we have uh this gentleman's been

2:52:50Tim

2:52:50O'Shaughnessy

2:52:51patiently waiting to come up and speak. No, they'll only need one.

2:52:56All right, that's it. Name and

2:52:58address.

2:52:59Name

2:52:59and address.

2:52:59And Verizon did reach out to my

2:53:01own.

2:53:01I need your name and address Tim O'Shaughnessy. I don't know who you're who's speaking if you know. I thought you said that. Tim Tim O'Shaughnessy. Thank

2:53:07you.

2:53:09[address removed].

2:53:13Oh okay.

2:53:13Uh this is what I

2:53:14need

2:53:14for one tower out here. Number two, Verizon did reach out to my engineer three days ago for a copy of my plans. I've reached out to the manager, never heard back. Um answer your question regarding stealth, uh canisters, canisters. Uh who asked the question regarding canister they can use canisters all day long. I just signed a lease with a Verizon at 6923 and Punta Worta. 18 Ts coming on that same tower tower. I got two in Port Orange on canisters. Won't

2:53:45go into detail and all that stuff, but they can go into thin labor canisters. Build them all the right place. That's all it's

2:53:53Thank you.

2:53:56All right. Are there any other questions?

2:53:58I got I got a question for Chris on the counties. Chris? Uh The reason we're here today and the reason denial is the recommendation. Can you go over that again? I mean, wh why is the recommendation for denial? Have you?

2:54:15So

2:54:15this

2:54:15is this is my job for the county.

2:54:18Okay.

2:54:18It's to basically look at the whether Ms. Downey thinks I can do it or not, this is what the county asked you to do and have done on many, many applications for Basco County and other counties. It's to review the all-depth information that's provided by the house. to determine whether it is at least feasible and yes, yes, yes I can model propagation from every care there is if you provide me the information of the equipment. It doesn't have to be proprietary information. I enter the model numbers and

2:54:48bound height is not proprietary.

2:54:51The frequency band that you're using is not proprietary.

2:54:54I have uh coverage modeling software. The model of software. I'm an already engineer who's been doing it for many years, I'm not going to give you a history of lesson easy.

2:55:04I asked for specific information on how they generated that coverage map that you just have. Again, yes, they provide information for multiple frequency bands, multiple pieces of equipment,

2:55:15but all of that's not used to generate that coverage map. There's one set of equipment, the one set of parameters that's used to generate that coverage map. I was not giving that information, so therefore I couldn't. Rightfully make any kind of determination as to whether

2:55:31the

2:55:32coverage map is feasible. In my professional opinion, it's not. They're not going

2:55:37to

2:55:37get that kind of coverage from the service that they are saying they're going to provide or default equipment they're going to do for. They're not going to get that distance covered.

2:55:46Okay, so so I don't know that so

2:55:49you give me specific information so that I can run the

2:55:51book. Okay, so during the review process you reviewed what they submitted you went back to them and you told them that the application is deficient because of X, Y, and Z and you've given them those reasons, correct?

2:56:03Uh well so like you was talking you said it's anything on either area, I passed my information to uh Ms. Hernandez, she passes it all.

2:56:10Okay. And and when they were told that items were deficient, how how did we get I I I I submit stuff to Rosella every day, okay? I I haven't had one submittal yet where I submitted stuff and I was waiting on comments back and I got immediately I got a denial. They come back to you and they say there's stuff missing. Provide the missing information. What what I don't understand what the disconnect here is if the If you were told stuff was missing. Was it not provided? Were you not told? I mean we don't just go from from A to Z without something happening in the middle. How do we end up here at

2:56:40Denial?

2:56:41I I have a deficiency letter um from let's see March twentieth, which were primarily technical. March

2:56:50twentieth. Yes. We filed on March You're talking content deficiency, not review. There's two different you understand the process. You go through content review and then after it passes content review, then they do the technical review of the document.

2:57:04I understand we resp we responded. to w we gave them all the information that's required by code and I guess It's seems like a very hostile environment here. Um He asked questions, we um responded I responded actually three well the third time I said I've already responded twice. We gave the technical data sheet nothing changed he uses multiple types of equipment

2:57:34different spectrum it is different from say a Verizon um I I can't I I don't know what's going on with Mr. Monsinga and his evaluation.

2:57:47But

2:57:47uh

2:57:48depending on the easement he provided one coverage map. I asked for the specifics on that coverage map. He he can use seven hundred different pieces of equipment. He used one set of equipment to produce that coverage map. That information specifics I did not receive. But isn't it

2:58:04isn't the coverage matter? It actually isn't and I um with all due respect to you when you keep saying that, it matters when they get to When they start having service all over the county it does matter. I understand that. Because whether they have a gap in coverage is something you have to consider.

2:58:22I understand that, but he our consultant has to he's asking for this information because he needs to know on a consistent basis, he has to evaluate coverage from He may be right for this very first one, but he can't set a precedent that it's okay to not give him this information. Because he's gonna need it to determine whether there's a gap in coverage when the next one comes in. So you can't say it's moot.

2:58:42Just like for the landscaping, there's an ordinance and there's a code. Just like it has to be applied for the landscaping, and you have to follow the rules for the landscaping. You've got to follow the rules for what the code requires to be submitted for this application. Yeah.

2:58:55If

2:58:55it hasn't been submitted, I'm assuming that they were told that there was stuff missing, And then I'm sh I'm assuming that at some point When they were told the stuff wasn't missing, they probably said, Well, we can't provide that. Well then they were probably given the option of w either denial or provide it. And they probably s came back and said, We'll go with denial. I mean I don't think I've heard anything today saying that this isn't needed that that They should be a little bit more than a little bit.

2:59:23So

2:59:24w it's it's a procedural issue and we're sitting here talking for an hour and a half. I'm sorry if it seems hostile. But it is hostile and I sit here for an hour and a half and I hear fingers being pointed in different directions saying we did it but we didn't do it.

2:59:34But we followed the code.

2:59:36Ha. Okay, you said you followed the code, he said you didn't. Who's right? That's what I'm talking about about finger pointing.

2:59:43I there's your code.

2:59:49I no, because I'm not an expert. I don't even know what this is you gave us. I have no idea.

2:59:53So are you saying

2:59:54you didn't give it?

2:59:55Are you saying that the what you submitted, the information you just handed to our clerk, is will allow him to assess the coverage map

3:00:06Yes. It a point. The problem

3:00:08that we have here is that we have a code that has a checklist that says they need to submit information to justify their height request. But we also have a code that contradicts itself right here that says That's not part of what we're looking at. We're here to look at things from a land use perspective. from a compatibility perspective, not whether they provide adequate service, not whether they can provide it for ten miles from

3:00:38here. We're trying to determine whether this is a blight on the landscape. That's what this comes down to. Which

3:00:45we have zero residents that are objecting to it.

3:00:50And it's probably going to provide a needed service to those residents around there that don't otherwise have

3:00:55service. I So to be I don't know in the Telecommunications Act though you do have to consider whether there's a gap in coverage. Because it it it it goes to the issue of is there you have you effectively denied coverage. Okay, so So they have no coverage. We have no coverage, so there's no cap or curry. Then are you going to approve this one on the condition that the next one where they have to prove there's a gap in coverage, they're going to give us the information? Because that's what the consultant has to address. is you may be right for the very first

3:01:25one. Okay, the the very first one you don't have to work.

3:01:31sorry 'cause I'm not trying to tell you how to do the job, but The ordinance needs to get fixed. I said this the last time we were in here with With Matinaya's case that we have an ordinance that's outdated, it needs to get fixed. These are things and I understand what it's like. You can't think of everything and every possibility when you create legislation. But now we've got an exception. That's why we have a hearing. It's this out in the open, okay. And now some changes need to happen to the ordinance to make sure that we've got something that works. It's

3:02:03it evolves. It I think it ev doesn't even say somewhere in our land development code or in the comp plan that this is a living document, that this this the code evolves to I think it's on the planning department website. We we

3:02:14routinely make changes to our code. That's an accurate statement.

3:02:17Yeah, I think that's in the ODT section. Okay. So I just

3:02:20it's not fair that a small business is trying to provide a needed service falls victim to a hole in our code. I think that's kind of where at least where I'm at.

3:02:31Well where I'm at is if it was this simple for you to walk this over here and give it to us and say, This is the answer to your questions. Then why didn't you just give it to the guy? You're saying he got it? He didn't get it.

3:02:45I didn't get uh that response is in response to the staff report that I had that wasn't even included. It wasn't even included in the staff report. I had to ask for the analysis and all the attachments on July twenty sixth.

3:03:02So you you weren't told that you were gonna get denial until you saw the staff report?

3:03:06I didn't know on what basis. And I had to ask for attachments. They weren't included. Look in your agenda. Those attachments weren't even included in in in the report. I didn't get the final, I didn't get the staff report or the final that included his analysis until July 26th. And we had all these other issues. I'm here today giving we had to go through point by point and analyze it and submit it. We did the best we could in the time that we

3:03:36were given.

3:03:42The um I I I I need to wrap up that on the federal telecommunications definition, it says that personal wireless services include unlicensed wireless services. And then it talks about on licensed wireless service means offering telecommunication services on duly authorized devices, which we explained. And it doesn't include satellite, which is a which is consistent with your code. Your

3:04:13code exempts the whole satellite issue. And then you there is discrimination when you are discriminating. Between the different types of communication services providers. We are a new service in Pasco County. It would be an effective prohibition for us. Um, and I I I'm not gonna talk to every other provider, but I think it's kind of obvious if the nearest tower is 4.29 miles away. You got issues with communications. I know every single time I've been out there I

3:04:43have call fail. I can't even send a text. So there is all manner of communication problems in this particular area. You have a distribution and an employment center coming online and People are trying to be proactive to have As Matanaya John mentioned, just like concurrency, you're trying to be online before you have a problem. So I I do agree with her on that. Um e other and I do appreciate your

3:05:13time. It just feels Like because we're new and maybe some of this has been unfamiliar. Did

3:05:20you say you had a list of conditions that you would like to see?

3:05:23I asked um just for the first three to be deleted because they're not your standard conditions. Um I've never seen them in any resolutions related to communication facilities and I asked for the last five years from the clerk's office and they kindly gave them to me which I have furnished in uh electronic format. Because actually that's part of your record anyways, anything that's been passed by um your Board of County Commissioners

3:05:52So making

3:05:53sure

3:05:53to be clear wrong.

3:05:57This thing doesn't

3:05:59So I I don't know where she's at on time, but we haven't finished this public hearing because you've not heard if there's anybody in opposition yet. So I

3:06:07I'm trying to

3:06:07get back to the

3:06:08right-of-way.

3:06:11No, we're not doing that. We have not finished the public hearing yet. So I don't know.

3:06:19So that was the conditions. I was just asking for one one, two, and three to be removed. We're fine with four through I think twelve. And obviously I'll leave it to the board. If you prefer Monocle, we're fine with monopol. We need the setbacks regardless.

3:06:34We're not voting on that yet. We're gonna hear from the public first.

3:06:37Okay. And then I'm sorry. Do you

3:06:42know what your presentation? Yes.

3:06:44Sure.

3:06:44Okay.

3:06:45May I come back if there is opposition?

3:06:49Thank you.

3:06:51Excuse me Mr. Chairman Ms. Marty Hughes submitted documents electronically to the clerk's office. Would you like to receive and file those?

3:06:59I we did already.

3:07:00Yeah, I think we did electronic

3:07:02electronics you did.

3:07:04Yeah. Motions are received. Second. All all in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.

3:07:14All right. Are there any is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak? In in in opposition.

3:07:23Yeah.

3:07:29I'm Matt Tania John, 935 Main Street, Suite C4, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. I don't know if I'm supposed to fit somewhere else in the speaking term. I'm not substantively I'm appearing on behalf of OneSource Towers 2. I am not substantively objecting to this site as I stated in my own matter. We stand in the light of our own day, but because Ms. Martahue has availed herself of the um of our record, we are I

3:08:00am maintaining standing in hers, just to avoid the possibility of malpractice. To the extent that Ms. Mardihu has stated uh that there's a state shot clock, it may help the tribunal to know that that's at 365.172 sub 13 D1. It has two stages of counting. There's math to be done there. Um anyways, that is all I have. And if I may, I would like to go home.

3:08:34Thank

3:08:35you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Anyone else? Yeah.

3:08:43Do you have any rebuttal uh for the applicant? Is there any rebuttal? I don't know what you would read but

3:08:53No.

3:08:56Yeah, I understand.

3:08:57The only testimony she offered was about a shot clock. So hopefully that's the only thing you're rebutting.

3:09:02Uh and I just want to clarify that the first part of the shot clock is with respect to which I had this conversation. I'm sure. And they

3:09:09still need your name.

3:09:11I'm sorry. It is Lee. Deborah Mortahue, Martahue Landley's Law. Uh just Mr. Gold scene, we had this conversation about the shot clocks in the statute, which is why we're on the statute. It's two parts. One's more procedural, the second one well there's two procedural one is whether or not your application is complete and then when final decisions need to be made uh within a certain time frame and we are just falling in that time frame and just

3:09:39The statutes also says that the parties can mutually agree to waive those time frames too, right, Mr. David? Yeah,

3:09:45but they'd have to agree. But we th they're hearing this today because they requested this hearing date and the you acknowledge it meets the shot clock, correct?

3:09:54I did.

3:09:55Okay. So There's no issue with the shot clock. Today's hearing needs that

3:09:59I would just clarify. I'm not arguing. I'm just clarifying.

3:10:04I I just need to clarify in the conditions.

3:10:10This is re this is for rebuttal now, not presentation.

3:10:13Oh wow, You made

3:10:15it

3:10:15clear earlier.

3:10:16You said you want one through three deleted.

3:10:18One through three I I didn't know if you were gonna follow with an executive session, so I just wanted to clarify if any notion was.

3:10:29We we we

3:10:30operate under the sunshine law.

3:10:32No no no no before you move no when I said executive session I meant when you closed the public hearing. I didn't know if I'd I just wanted to clarify the types of conditions of approval, that's all. Because usually you

3:10:42stayed earlier you wanted one through three deleted and you were okay with four through twelve, right?

3:10:46Correct. And we are open to um if it's the preference of the board

3:10:52or One and it's enclosed.

3:10:54Correct. And if it's the preference of the board, recognizing that the the property is very heavily wooded, you can't even see in there. We certainly would be open to a waiver of the landscape requirements.

3:11:12Or doing I didn't finish, or doing the alternative standard application for that review just as an option.

3:11:19Okay.

3:11:24What I said is that you could apply for that at site plan approval.

3:11:33Okay. I think

3:11:34you've had your turn.

3:11:35Tim O'Shaughnessy [address removed]. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't realize that we didn't see those conditions of of approval until the twenty-sixth. That's the first time I've heard it. Um but I appreciate it.

3:11:51Yeah, I mean I I I wanna assure you that in conversations we've had, the staff has gone way above board to try to help get this to the point for you and your company and I would not personally I I don't know how the rest rest of the staff feel, but typically I wouldn't have an objection to your request except for the fact that the application was incomplete and that's why it was recommended for denial. So I mean I I I feel

3:12:21like uh your representative has taken you know offense at something that she should never have taken offense of. That's why I walked up. So all right.

3:12:31Thank you very much. So with that said, I wish we were number two before then, but we're last so hopefully

3:12:36that's okay.

3:12:40Probably wore us down.

3:12:43And again, for clarity, I don't think it matters whether the other site was approved or not. We've already talked about that. So you keep saying number two, number one, whoever's there first. That has nothing to do with this. Yeah, that would

3:12:51be a good thing.

3:12:51Just to be clear.

3:12:52That wouldn't have any

3:12:52effect

3:12:53on my decision.

3:12:54I know that. That's why I asked the question of whether there might be a need for two of them in this area. Well that's why I answered Crap of the Chus.

3:13:02Yeah. So I don't know how the boat's gonna go but it'll have nothing to do with the fact that the other one was approved. Well

3:13:09appreciate the time. Okay.

3:13:10Thank you.

3:13:15Okay. I think we've reached a point where we have to make a motion and vote.

3:13:21I have one I have I just want to make one comment. So I it's up to the Planning Commission about whether you approved or denied this. The only thing I would ask is that And if you want to delete conditions one, two, three, I don't that's up to the Planning Commission. I would ask though that if you do approve it, that there be a finding that did not set a precedent for Two this form of application is acceptable for future applications because my fear is that that with all due respect to Mr. Moody,

3:13:52I do think that coverage maps and these and the validity of the coverage maps is relevant. And it may not be relevant for this one because it's the first one. But if you say it's irrelevant or moot They could put up eighty towers in this area and say It doesn't matter what my coverage is, right? At some point our RF engineer needs to be able to demonstrate that I agree with you. That that

3:14:14I agree as well.

3:14:14So you can't that's my concern here is the precedent this is setting is that you don't have to give our RF engineer the information he needs to determine coverage.

3:14:22I agree with you. But what I believe we have is Pardon the pun. A communication problem between the RF professionals here. um as to what constitutes the sufficient information to figure that all out. I think one guy's got an opinion and I can tell you this,

3:14:47I've been doing civil engineering now for almost thirty years. Hear me I don't see nothing now. I don't need I don't need a calculator to tell me that if I have a quarter acre that's paved ninety percent of the way, that it's gonna be an F D. O. T. type inlet with a fifteen inch pipe coming out of it. I've done it so many times, I don't Yes, I can go in the F D O T drainage manual and it says I need to have Manning Zen and I need to have the slope and I and you know what the answer is

3:15:17gonna come out the same every time. So I don't necessarily just because the ordinance says you've got to provide A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, I don't know that all that is always necessary all the time to prove your point or to prove the case.

3:15:34Especially in this case.

3:15:35Especially in this case because this isn't they're not This isn't a proposal. It may there may have

3:15:41some I I don't think we're just capitalism will sort it out as well because if there is coverage holes then people will come in to try to fill those coverage holes. If there's no coverage holes then there won't be a need for that service. So it kind of sorts itself out. I understand the need for the ordinance. I understand the I

3:15:56mean an ordinance does d does discourage a proliferation of towers.

3:16:02from pure capitalism standpoint. So you're you're not gonna build a tower where it's not needed.

3:16:09Well so that's that's the question. Well I

3:16:13I'll be suggest as your expert um No disrespect. I look at the map and tell them that it's a cham, which is why I request the additional information. I don't need A B, C, D, and E to know whether the RM map is uh a legitimate map or not. So uh that's why I asked for this more information so I think about approving

3:16:36the other

3:16:37one. But

3:16:38I'll I'll I'll leave it at that and you gotta move on.

3:16:41There's there's a reason why there's a process. There's a reason why the county uses a RF engineer to review the submittal. None of us up here are I I I'll take that back. I'm not a v I'm not I can't review their application because I don't know what it even says. Okay? I'm not an expert in the matter. The county hires an expert in the matter. I think we're setting a dangerous precedent. I think we're really s overstepping our bounds by approving something that has not gone through the channels and the levels of review that the code requires it to

3:17:11go through. So that's my point.

3:17:13I can compare with that philosophy too. I think we all do in some respect because we know that there is a process. And it's fair when all of us play the same sheet of music or we all use the same rule book. And I think that's what we're trying to say here. And therefore I'd I'd recommend that. I'm s I'm proposing no. I'm Making a motion that we deny the request per county's recommendation.

3:17:44It's almost like a double negative. You're act you're actually making a motion to approve the county's recommendation of denial.

3:17:51Denial. Denial. Did I not say denial? Well you knew I understood what you knew what happened.

3:17:55You said we were gonna deny it.

3:17:58Not we. I mean dying

3:17:59I have a question for David. Yes. If this Application is denied. Is there anything that stops them from resubmitting their application tomorrow morning at eight a m? So

3:18:16I would go one step beyond that. You're a recommending body. Okay, so

3:18:21okay.

3:18:21So you in theory could recommend denial they may be able to between now and the board meeting to get Chris everything he needs to maybe we're sta staff could actually issue a different recommendation to the board if they have It Chris has all the information he needs. Point well taken.

3:18:37And that goes to my question for Denise. Did I hear you say there are other Towers that have similar service that have already been approved in Pasco or did I misunderstand that?

3:18:50I'm I'm not sure I don't know.

3:18:52Well in other words this is this seems to be a unique new thing, but are there did I hear that other towers have been approved that maybe aren't just cell service but some other

3:19:02I think the applicant mentioned that in one of the resolutions that was provided.

3:19:06Okay. Are you aware of one that we've approved its Not

3:19:10That's not the major carrier?

3:19:13I think we may have done one not major carrier, but I'd have to go back through the records to see which one it is.

3:19:19I guess my point is that we're going to be able to do it.

3:19:21So yes, I think we have done. Within the last five years of the request that were made, yes, I think there was one. Okay. Thank you.

3:19:27I also think there's a good chance that maybe a utility and or a public safety agency there requested a tower for their communications. I don't know, I haven't reviewed any. This is the first one that I've reviewed Pasco County that was uh a witness

3:19:42for a non-major carrier.

3:19:45I see what you're saying. So you're saying that like the Duke Energy, for example, towers. Okay. Yeah, that's accurate. We have approved a Duke Energy.

3:19:55Yeah, we've had two within the last five years from Duke Energy.

3:19:58Mr. Chair call for a point of order. I need a second on that motion or denial.

3:20:02I'm in complete agreement that that a tower is needed out there. I'm not in I'm not saying it's not needed. I'm just I'm not comfortable stepping outside the bounds of doing giving some kind of approval with conditions when we're not even the experts to do that. So I I'll second the motion.

3:20:17Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation for denial.

3:20:25All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign?

3:20:30Nay.

3:20:30Nay. Okay, I believe that motion carries.

3:20:36You want to

3:20:36phone

3:20:37call just to get the numbers? So you Yeah we could do the roll call.

3:20:41Because I did not vote. I don't think I'd vote

3:20:44unless there

3:20:44was a

3:20:45most at the time. But let's let's so there's an accurate number, it wouldn't be a roll call.

3:20:49Okay. Mr. Jamie Girardi.

3:20:51I approve the denial. Aye.

3:20:53Mr. Derek Pontlitz?

3:20:55Nay.

3:20:55Mr. Peter Hensel?

3:20:57I approve the denial. Yes.

3:20:58Mr. John Moody?

3:21:00Nay.

3:21:00Mr. Christopher Poole?

3:21:02Aye.

3:21:03And Chairman Charles Gray.

3:21:05I approve the denial.

3:21:07And that is four to two.

3:21:11And I'm hoping that You can take this information that you just handed out to us and get it to the RF analyzer and maybe before the next meeting you can get it resolved. Be because as the attorney points out, we're only making a recommendation. So it's not decided.

3:21:38Okay. Anything else?

3:21:44Four to two.

3:21:45Four to two.

3:21:45Yeah. And I think that was a sympathetic word or two. I think if the application had been complete in our opinions, probably would have had a unanimous vote. But it wasn't. So we don't want to set a precedent.