Conditional Use (Consent) - 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

59:44think if we just get to the discussion of it, condition point would be fine. Okay.

59:48So as I understand it and I will allow the applicant to speak, my understanding um in speaking to David Goldstein with the county attorney's office is that the applicant would like to to have us so for the board to close public comment, approve the item, depending on us getting together with condition number one, kind of like tightening it tightening it up for what the applicant is looking for to get to some sort of an agreement on that.

1:00:12Before we c close cl close public comment, like I'd like to hear the discussion first.

1:00:17Sure, absolutely.

1:00:22So I I think maybe I need to present the entire item to go through the discussions.

1:00:28Well there's no other opposition, so basically I would just I would stick with the one with uh with the one item.

1:00:34Okay.

1:00:34Forty nine.

1:00:36So at in at issue here is that um so basically this is an application that came to A public hearing with it being a deficient application in terms of radio frequency analysis requirements. We do have our radio frequency engineer, uh Mr. Chris Bonzingo with Omnicom here to discuss that. That is definitely beyond my scope scope of the world. Um so basically

1:01:05The application um at the subject site is on the south side of Bent Fork R Bent Fork Road, um just west of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. Um and uh the applicant has an issue with Condition of approval number one. Um it did go to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial. Since the Planning Commission meeting, our RF engineer did put together radio frequency maps, which is one of the things that was deficient in the application. um because that item of

1:01:35deficiency has been resolved. Um Our RF engineer put that together. uh we put together some conditions of approval that were Using the expertise of our radio engineer and the applicant has a concern with condition of approval number one, which is requires for the applicant to show backhaul how this wireless service provider is going to provide service to that actual tower. How their that applicant is gonna get his

1:02:05or her service because they're based of Orlando into um into this particular tower. Mr. Monzingo is on uh the call and he can explain that a lot better than I can. Um but I will say that for the record, in all the years that I've been doing this job, I have never brought a deficient application to the Planning Commissioner the Board of County Commissioners. So you're gonna see a lot of uh language in the resolution that explains that this is not setting a precedent

1:02:36and and all that stuff. That's why this um this actual agenda memo is quite large um compared to others. So um I think the applicant is here. Um if you have questions I can answer the questions from a land development code perspective. Um but I will definitely defer to Mr. Manzingo to answer questions related to RF on this matter.

1:02:59He's online, yes.

1:02:59Let's hear from him.

1:03:12Good afternoon. Uh Deborah Mardi Hill, Mardi Hughing Islaw representative. Hold on, hold on.

1:03:17Are we gonna hear from the person online? Or is that through you?

1:03:25I apologize. I thought the intent was to kinda like agree on condition one um to not have to bring Mr. Mozingo on. But if we can you know

1:03:33if we

1:03:33can talk about that.

1:03:34No, that's that's fine. Okay.

1:03:37Um Deborah Martahue, Martahue Land Use Law, St. Petersburg, Florida, representing the co-applicants, West Orange West Orange Wireless and North American. That's kind of my understanding at this point too. Mr. Goldstein and I have been at it since I got the condition last week and we worked all weekend, so I do appreciate that. And I think we're close. My concern with condition number one, just in general, I've given them a proposed condition, is condition number one really deals with a third-party

1:04:07vendor that provides backhaul service. Up. They're not a co applicant. I I have no authority to bind them to the type of information that the county is asking for. With that said, subsequent to the Planning Commission, we have given not one, not two, not three potential backhaul providers within the area. They're 1,500 feet from the site. We got one this morning that did a site survey, charter spectrum. You're all familiar. Um Uh this is kinda how the goalpost is

1:04:38moved a little bit. Initially the consultant said that there's no backhaul in the area, couldn't possibly service the site. How are we going to get it there from Orlando? We disagreed. We provid provided three different backhaul providers within 1,500 feet of the site. One of them, like I said, Charter Spectrum this morning, said they gave us, oh, and the other thing that the consultant has said is that it would be cost prohibitive. We have an estimate of a little over 17,000 this morning. I don't think anybody would say that's cost

1:05:08prohibitive when you're looking at building a 560,000. uh uh cost uh the tower is five hundred and sixty thousand dollars. So twenty thousand less than twenty thousand is not cost prohibitive. Um, I provided that to the county attorney. So mainly that first condition, being asked to bind a third party that is not part of this application. I can't do that. Um what we could do and where we're at and I guess we're still fine-tuning the language is we've provided this letters of service

1:05:38availability. We can provide, even though no other communication provider has ever been asked this, we can provide the memor a recorded memorandum of lease between the two co-applicants because that's tied to the real property. We can provide a memorandum of lease regarding the backhaul once it's entered into, prior to turning dirt. So that's what we've offered. And we said if and and of course

1:06:08the installation of the wireless equipment would be part of the building permit. And

1:06:15Again, those I This has never been asked of any other communications provider. So we're still negotiating Mr. Goldstein can confirm that. I don't think there's any other issues. There's been no other objection. This is a type of service that is important in the rural area. It's competitive service. And West Orange Wireless is currently in Lake Orange County. Their service is imminent in Osceola. Just last week on August

1:06:4521st, I had them approved in Polk County. This will be our first site. in um uh Pasco County and we're trying to provide a competitive wireless service, communication service to this area. So if you would allow us to continue to negotiate that condition Um if we come to an agreement, I guess I'm not gonna guess on your protocol, but I guess it would come back on consent. If we can't, then we'll come back and do a full presentation.

1:07:17I mean we could continue it till we're going to be able to do Later time.

1:07:22Well there I mean we want to be treated like other people that on the consent that there's not really a land development issue. It's a condition of supposedly proving that our communications provider has the infrastructure or the ability to put the infrastructure in place to service the tower. I think we've jumped all those hurdles. But We're still fighting.

1:07:45Okay. So I think that's generally accurate. I think we are close on the language. I don't think we're quite there yet. As um the applicant just mentioned, we're getting some information for the first time today. We just haven't had a chance to evaluate it and put it in the form of a condition that's acceptable to our office and staff. So my recommendation would be that you go ahead and close the public hearing, approve the item, delegate authority to the county attorney's office and staff to negotiate a revised condition one and then put

1:08:15it back on your morning consent agenda at the next board meeting.

1:08:19Yeah.

1:08:20I just don't want to have to bring everybody back here if we can reach agreement on that condition. I think we're close.

1:08:25Okay. I think everybody has not really said what the and I've had a commissioner ask. The back haul you might want to explain why this tower is different than some of the others.

1:08:41So backhaul, yeah, I'm sorry that's a term that most people are not familiar with. So backhaul is generally their ability to bring the their service to the tower. In other words, when you just when you prove a tower and you put something on the tower, you still have to connect that tower to something. So the backhaul source is what you're connecting to. So the applicant mentioned that they have there's fiber in the area that that they may be able to connect to to bring The service to this tower and then broadcast their service from the tower to home sites. We

1:09:11had our our app our expert was concerned that they and the State of the Planning Commission they had not identified a backhaul source for their service. If we're going to approve this tower, we want to make sure that they can actually provide. the service they said they're going to provide on this tower. That's the whole purpose of condition number one. We don't approve speculative towers in Basco County. We approve towers for a provider. West Orange Wireless is a provider, we want to make sure that they can provide that service. So that's the purpose of condition one. The

1:09:42applicant is offered a different version of condition one. It's fairly close to what we're looking for, but it's not quite there yet. I do think that we just need some time to word submit the language a little bit.

1:09:54Okay.

1:09:55I think Commissioner Oakley.

1:09:56And if the deal and if we can't come to a s to a resolution between the applicant and and uh County Attorney's Office and Development Services, then it would come back to you for the full year.

1:10:09Okay. Commissioner Weightman. Thanks,

1:10:11Chair. Can you clarify where this is gonna be a Monopole or unipole?

1:10:17Um we had originally submitted, this Deborah Marty for the record, we had originally submitted um for a Unipol. Staff recommended a monopole. There's technical reasons for it. We're fine with that. Either way, it's fine. The monopol's fine. Um, I do want to clarify in backhaul. every communications provider. I don't care if it's Sprint, ATT well, Sprint is now T Mobile, but T Mobile, ATT, Verizon, pick one dish. West Orange Wildlist, they all need backhaul. which is either fiber

1:10:47or through microwave connections. Um to their site. Every provider needs it. and every provider in this area would lack the fiber in the right-of-way. Because you're not an urban area. Like if we were in an urban area, that fiber conduit would probably already be in the right-of-way and you just run the connection onto your property. That doesn't exist in this area. So um like I said we started with there is none in the area

1:11:17and somehow it would be cost prohibitive for West Orange Wireless to show a connection back to Orlando uh where they're headquartered. But that's really not the case. We've given the county attorney Three different potential service providers. And again, this morning Charter Spectrum actually gave us they did a site survey. That's what was done between Planning Commission because Staff asked for more details and we were able to get a cost.

1:11:45Sorry. This question was just about monopoles versus multiple. It's a monopole. Okay. And the reason for a monopole is it's easier for co-location opportunities on a monopole than

1:11:53uglier.

1:11:54I understand that, but

1:11:59why do I want to go ugly?

1:12:01Okay. Because there's and it and Denise and our expert can testify this too as w as well. The problem with the unipoles is that in many of the unipoles the equipment overheats.

1:12:13I heard that that's taken care of now. I

1:12:15heard

1:12:15it in one of the planning commission meetings.

1:12:17I'm not sure that our consultant agrees with that. Okay. Regardless, we we do our let our consultant speak to it, but I think they they believe that co-location it's easier to have co-location opportunities on a monopole than it is on a unipole. If you want we can get our Chris to speak to it or Denise can too.

1:12:35Can I answer one question about that too? I I will say this. In a rural area and we gave photosIMs um which if we came back to a full hearing we gave the photosIMs of both scenarios to the to the staff. You can't tell the difference in a rural area. Um, a monopole it it blends into the horizon. The unipole has to be a wider diameter. So that's the trade off that you have because everything's gotta be housed in the canister. So It's either way, I normally we do go

1:13:06ahead and do monopoles in this type of area, um, particularly at this height, because you can do a slim pole, just so you know. Um But it can go either way. And staff was recommending a monopole, we're fine with that. And this is

1:13:19higher than what staff can approve just on its own, right? It's

1:13:24this would not be a tier two tower. It cannot be administratively approved.

1:13:29Yeah, just so you know that when they go higher, they have to come back and this is the right-of-way.

1:13:32For the for the record, it's a zoning issue. Um in this particular zoning and land use you cannot have a tier two. It doesn't exist. It doesn't meet the criteria on the table.

1:13:42Commissioner

1:13:42Weightman Yeah. So my concern with any Sell towers and Brings out fill towers bring out the best in folks. If we're going to have 'em, which we do need 'em, which provide the best service. If we're going to have have 'em I personally really see one that's going to provide the the best service in Less impact so what so what are we talking about here?

1:14:06So so I think that's probably a monopole and you can hear from our expert in Denise, but you actually just approved the tower I think on your last agenda where we had a carrier actually leave a unipole because they could no longer provide service on that unipole and had to build a new tower well how far away was it?

1:14:23Eleven hundred and fifty thing.

1:14:25On a monopole tower because the unipole was insufficient to provide service, because their equipment was overheating in the unipole. So if you're asking my opinion, which is gonna provide the most opportunity for co location and providing service, it's a monopole. But we can get Denise or Chris to say the same thing, but I'm sure that's what they would say.

1:14:46Okay. And Denise if I could. We we talked a few weeks back a couple of weeks back about um conditions for these poles, how they look. And I told you about the one that was put in my neighborhood where they do a great job replacing the sign when they need to when you make the call, but I know you're working on conditions to make sure they're gonna look in a first class condition as as when they go up instead of peeling paint. Is there a condition you can put into this, especially if we're gonna go monopole?

1:15:13Um so for the record I just want to say that it this item has been on the ordinance development team agenda for quite some time to develop um to develop maintenance standards for these wireless communications facilities because we are seeing some that are either peel peeling paint or the uni poles that are out there, some of them are missing, like the sheathing has fallen off. I'm not going to mention which one, but all of us know which one. We drive by there all the time. But I would feel uncomfortable to put that condition on this applicant when you just

1:15:43approved another one just a few minutes ago and it didn't have that condition. But please understand that this is something that we're working on through the ordinance development team to have maintenance standards for wireless communications facilities.

1:15:56Well maybe she'd volunteer to do it.

1:16:01Yeah, so um Miss Martahue can explain about galanized. It's

1:16:05Dumber Martahue. Galvanized is not painted. It's um so you remove that maintenance issue. The unipole might be painted and then you have the maintenance issue. It's just two different it's another pro, I guess, maybe to go to the monopole, okay?

1:16:19Okay, so won't apply to this one? Right. Okay.

1:16:23I I am

1:16:24Commissioner Starkey.

1:16:25I am okay for them to make out the agreement. I think they're almost there.

1:16:33Well let me let me go to public comment first, close the public comment, and then I'll let David recommend the motion or Jeff then we'll go for it. Uh so the

1:16:44So for item P forty nine, is there any f any public comment to this item?

1:16:50Uh none uh uh Gary Brundage is the consultant. Uh Jesse

1:17:03Okay.

1:17:03Okay. Uh and none others.

1:17:06Okay. Uh anyone on WebEx?

1:17:09Uh no sir.

1:17:10Okay, we'll close closed public comments. Now it's to the board and David or Jeff would you make a motion motion on how you want it to be that we can

1:17:19The length of the right-of-way.

1:17:22Yeah.

1:17:24Approve.

1:17:26They delegate authority for us to work out condition one, especially is the motion. And we bring back back to you on your consent agenda at the next meeting.

1:17:37Okay.

1:17:37Did I get that right, Joe? Second.

1:17:40Yeah. All right, so we have a motion a second on IP 49. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Right, item P fifty.

1:17:52Majority approved.

1:17:55Yes, we previously announced approved