Non-profit ad served by VoyForums...
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 17:46:25 10/16/17 Mon
Author: copied from FB
Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Comm. Meeting Monday, Oct 16, 2017 6:30pm
In reply to:
Public Hearing Continued from Oct 9, 2017
's message, "Planning and Zoning Comm. Meeting Monday, Oct 16, 2017 6:30pm" on 06:01:55 10/16/17 Mon
Well went to the River Oaks Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting tonight the 16 OCT and spoke HERE IS WHAT I SAID EARLERY
"The use of the telecommunication tower is irreverent to the discussion of the tower there is no where in the city code that says it mater what the tower will be used for.
the tower violate 3 of the 5 requirements in section 24 of the building code I am sure if this was brought before you by ATT, Sprint, Cell Mobil, Straight talk or any one else it would be turned down.
The violation are :
1. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers or Other Structures. No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the city council that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:
( The water tower will work if that is the only option) schools excuses is the server need to be by the tower, but the server is at the hight school so this is distance would not mater cell company are hundreds and thousands of miles from there tower and they still provide cell access for phones ,IPad, execrate .
2. Setbacks and Separation. The following setbacks and separation requirements shall apply to all towers:
c. Towers over 90 feet in height shall not be located within one-quarter of a mile from any existing tower that is over 90 feet in height. Distances shall be measured in a straight line between the nearest points on the bases of the towers."""""""""
And at the end the board member asked if what I stated was true and Marvin says " In my opinion the tower does now violate the reason I stated because the city council can change them" .
What gives when does Opinion rate over fact so they voted. and it passed when the lady board member asked another board member why he voted no he stated the rules say there are 3 reasons not to pass it well the lady want to change her mind no dice the city got it approved time to go.
so lets reflect on our school system and city
1 MS Falkner say the are only 2 user and will only be those 2 CISD and the city so what does that mean the tower can not be more then 120'.(they doing 150') at this meeting see stated that there is only 1 user so max height should be 90' by city rules (they still want150')
2 The servers are at 914 Churchill Road 1.5 miles from proposed tower, but CISD has to have the tower at CE again 1.5 miles from the server. There are 2 tower closer again makes no senses.
3 Tower is 105' crosser to another tower (.23 miles) then is allowed by the city but that does not mater either .
So what does that mean to the citizens of River Oaks we do not mater our voices do not mater and it does not mater what the rules are they do not apply is you know the right people so my point why have rules and comity's and councils and boards, if the city is going to do as it pleases
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8|
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2017 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.