My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 5-15-15 to 5-25-15
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments 5-15-15 to 5-25-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2015 10:42:54 AM
Creation date
5/27/2015 9:50:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
5/27/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
reflect the total 75-foot height of the proposed tower. Ms. Linstromberg has <br />considerable experience with the balloon and has used it to accurately <br />demonstrate cell tower heights on many other occasions. It is noteworthy that <br />there was a slight wind blowing at the time and the balloon was often not at the <br />full height, so multiple photos were taken in order to try and capture an image of <br />the balloon at full height and an actual elevation of 75 feet. In other words, the <br />photographed balloon may be slightly lower than the height of the proposed <br />tower due to the wind pushing the balloon sideways. <br /> <br />The application photo from Viewpoint 16 with the tower representation was then <br />overlaid on the newly-taken photo (with the balloon for reference) and scaled to <br />match the new photo using a partially transparent layer in Photoshop. From this <br />overlay the balloon height can be compared with the tower representation <br />prepared by the applicant. It can clearly be seen that the monopine tower <br />representation is 5 to 10 feet below the top of the balloon (see attached photo <br />analysis). In other words, the application misrepresents the visual height of the <br />tower by portraying it as being 5 to 10 feet lower than it will actually be. This is a <br />fairly significant discrepancy and raises questions about the veracity of the other <br />visual representations prepared by the applicant. <br /> <br />w photo simulations have <br />been to provide the new tower design and landscaping with a very high degree <br />of accuracy [sic, emphasis added] The applicant has failed to describe the <br />method used to obtain these representations and has failed to explain why they <br />would have a <br />inaccurate statements cast a poor light on the quality and integrity of the <br />application. <br /> <br />By misrepresenting the tower height, the applicant has failed to meet EC <br />9.5750(6)(c)(1) and the application should be denied. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br />Eben Fodor <br />Principal <br /> <br />Photo analysis attached. <br /> <br />Fodor & Associates - Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.