Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> 10 <br /> Mary Willis replied that the subdivision regulations addressed that issue. Land leased <br /> for this particular purpose is considered under subdivision regulations and must receive <br /> approval in order to create a lot for the principal use as opposed to just having an easement. It <br /> would not specifically prohibit cultivation of that land. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked if the buffer was related to the lease line because other <br /> nearby lots could have homes on them. She also asked for further clarification regarding the <br /> objection to mailing notification to a specified list. <br /> Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield <br /> the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a <br /> two acre area. It is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower. <br /> Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list <br /> would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these <br /> companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of <br /> competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and <br /> competitive. <br /> John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this <br /> business. AT&T will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They <br /> do not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor. <br /> Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want <br /> notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed. <br /> Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable <br /> basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is <br /> to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New users would be <br /> added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to <br /> co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as large a <br /> comprehensive list as possible. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to <br /> refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than <br /> January 16, 1996. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations <br /> This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a <br /> proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding <br /> screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The <br /> Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board <br /> for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January <br /> 16, 1996. <br />