<br /> <br />Issues of Non-Compliance with Section 9.5750 To-Date <br /> <br />§ 6 - Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application requirements <br />specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall include <br />the following information: <br />1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the <br />appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at least 5 <br />points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the provider with <br />review and approval by the planning director to ensure that various potential views <br />are represented. <br />2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 feet have been <br />considered and have been determined to be technologically unfeasible or <br />unavailable. For site reviews, alternative sites zoned E-1, E-2, I-2, and I-3 must be <br />considered. For conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, E-1, <br />E-2, I-2, I-3 and S-WS must be considered. <br /> <br />Comment <br />: We do not feel that what has been submitted is clear and <br />convincing evidence of compliance with the preceding §2 of this section. <br />There is no verifiable technical evidence submitted that proves any existing <br />structure cannot be used to at least partially serve the intended service <br />area. What information was submitted is not verifiable in the form it was <br />submitted. <br /> <br />It has not been demonstrated by verifiable “Documentation”, i.e. technical <br />evidence, that it is “technologically unfeasible”, to locate on one or more <br />sites within a 2,000’ radius of the proposed location. It has also not been <br />demonstrated by verifiable evidence that a location perhaps even slightly <br />beyond the 2,000’ radius will not work, or could not be made to work, to <br />provide the intended service to at least a portion(s) of the intended service <br />area, thereby allowing a shorter less intrusive facility than a 75’ tall tower. <br /> <br />Propagation studies (e.g. as submitted) are merely predictive models that <br />do not necessarily represent the [f]actual real-world situation. By definition <br />they are approximations. The test of something being “unfeasible” is a <br />definitive test that does not allow for approximation. Thus, in the instant <br />context, the test of proving that something is “unfeasible” can only be <br />conclusively proven through the conduct of a ‘drive test’. <br /> <br />As regards the conduct of a drive test that accurately depicts and reflects <br />the real-world situation, whether existing and/or proposed, CMS would be <br />pleased to discuss what is necessary and how it should be done. It should <br />be noted that drive tests are the commonly and historically used means by <br />which the detail needed for network design is determined and on which the <br />actual business and design decisions are made by both carriers and tower <br />companies. <br /> <br />Also, since the propagation maps included in the application were not <br />accompanied by the ‘modeling’ information that was used to produce them, <br />i.e. the technical variables inputted into the software, the accuracy and <br />correctness of the propagation maps provided is not able to be verified in <br />an ‘apples-to-apples’ context. CMS has a simple (copyrighted) fill-in-the- <br />blank form that, when completed by an applicant and certified as to its <br />accuracy and truthfulness, can be used to provide the modeling information <br />2 <br /> <br />