Browse
Search
Agenda 05-28-2002
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 05-28-2002
>
Agenda 05-28-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2017 12:10:11 PM
Creation date
3/28/2012 9:49:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/28/2002
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020528
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
0042 8 <br /> TURNING A"WIN-LOSE-LOSE"INTO A"WIN-WIN-WIN"SITUATION <br /> TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF(UNNECESSARY) SITUATIONS <br /> UGLY AND TALLER THAN NECESSARY TWICE AS MANY TOWERS AS NEEDED&TWICE AS TALL AS NEEDED <br /> THIS CHOULD BE <br /> cIn THE HEIGHT OF THE ; <br /> j 5 d <br /> TOWER FOR THE 2 �•k3k , „:. ',.. � <br /> l ATTACHED <br /> All ALL 6 CARRIERS <br /> CARRIERS COULD GO ON THIS <br /> J SINGLE TOWER <br /> +iii� f,��f! .��, + �is .• <br /> , <br /> Why does the situation Exist? <br /> • Municipal Officials have never been taught how to minimize the number and height of towers in the <br /> context of the authority they have under the federal law and the technological capabilities of the <br /> industry. <br /> • Tower companies want to maximize their revenue-generating resource(i.e. space on the tower)and <br /> certainly aren't incented not to build towers . . .or to camouflage them,unless required to do so by <br /> (local) law/regulations. <br /> • Municipal Officials don't know that under federal law tower companies don't have a`need'—only <br /> carriers have a `need',and in many cases there's an alternative to a new tower,or the tower can be <br /> significantly shorter and/or often`camouflaged'. <br /> What is the Carrier's issue as regards the permitting process? <br /> Time,which equates to revenue or the loss thereof.Every day they're not in operation is on average <br /> (nationwide)$3,000/carrier/site/day in lost revenue that will never be realized,but in a number of instances <br /> significantly more,e.g. $5,000-$10,000. <br /> What should be the community's issues? <br /> • Is the facility needed at all? <br /> • Does it have to be tower? <br /> • Is there proof of the need for the requested height? <br /> • Health,Safety&Welfare <br /> -Structural adequacy and means of attachment <br /> -RF Emissions(NIER) <br /> -Electrical Grounding&Bonding <br /> -Setback distance from surrounding dwellings and buildings <br /> • Assure the minimal visual impact(co-location versus new tower,minimum height necessary,color, <br /> appearancelcamouflage, screening) <br /> • Facilitate the expansion of service for reasons of economic development <br /> • Assure that all art-win,i.e.the public,the carriers/applicants and the local officials <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.