Browse
Search
P ORD-2002-030 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2002
>
P ORD-2002-030 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2013 2:09:00 PM
Creation date
4/23/2012 4:48:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/6/2002
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Resolution
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20021106
(Linked To)
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.
/
120
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
Tom King - August262002.doc Page 2 <br />Section D is higher technical standards and a new fee structure, which will help the County <br />bring on consultants to assist in the application process. <br />Section E is periodic inspections for major and minor problems once or twice a year. This was <br />not in the ordinance before. This is to make sure that the structural integrity of the tower is still there and <br />that any special use standards are still being upheld. <br />Section F is the Master Telecommunications Plan. There will be a piacehoider in the ordinance <br />for this when it is adopted. <br />Section G is a requirement to submit a picture of the balloon test to staff and to notify residents <br />of this test. This also includes some separation requirements, but there will be some exceptions. <br />Section H is a fee schedule change for both applications and inspections. Building inspection <br />fees will be $20 per linear foot for new towers. Zoning review fees are $10,000 for a class A process <br />and $8,500 for a class B process. The majority of the monies will go to a consultant to help review the <br />application. He said that this is a time consuming process and the fees are indicative of the time spent <br />to review the applications. <br />He said that after discussion of these items for about two years, the idea is to bring these items <br />to the Planning Board at their September 41" meeting and then bring it back to the Board of County <br />Commissioners on September 171i. Under this new ordinance, the process will start in January of next <br />year. Between the adoption of this ordinance and the first submittal of applications, we need to adopt <br />the Master Telecommunications Plan. This plan includes making available public and quasi - public <br />properties for use to locate towers (i.e., fire stations, voluntary ag districts, etc.). This needs to be <br />adopted before the first set of applications. <br />Craig Benedict pointed out an error on the gold sheet in the motion. The date in the motion <br />should be September I r and not September 201h. <br />Questions from Board of County Commissioners <br />Commissioner Carey asked about Section G and if there were any other issues besides visual <br />that warrants this provision. Craig Benedict described the difference between the general and specific <br />standards. This section is putting more standards in the general category so that all towers will have to <br />comply with the general standards. <br />Commissioner Carey asked about the rationale for no more applications until after the meeting <br />at the beginning of the year. Craig Benedict explained that the meeting would identify who needs new <br />towers within the year. This would identify potential co- location opportunities because the industry <br />providers would be meeting together. There wilt be some emergency situations that are not identified at <br />the meeting. <br />Commissioner Carey asked about the exceptions to the 1/2 -mile separation. Craig Benedict <br />said that a tower could exist that is only able to hold one user. if someone wants to put another tower <br />right beside this one, then they will have to explain why the tower could not be replaced with one that <br />could accommodate more users. If the tower has four users and they can show that that is the area <br />they need to service, then the tower would be allowed. <br />Commissioner Brown is concerned that the public may see that the presentation <br />accommodates the cell tower industry. She noted that in fact the Board of County Commissioners is <br />concerned about the towers and how they affect the public. She wants clarification on the stealth <br />towers, particularly the one on 140 at RTP that looks like a pine tree at the top. She asked if there was <br />a more elaborate idea about when the stealth towers are part of the terrain and do not look more <br />ridiculous than the normal ones. Craig Benedict said that they would encourage multi - purpose sites and <br />co- location sites. Anytime these sites have a public purpose the County can set what the tower will look <br />like. The more cell users there are the lower the towers. Some towers could blend in with existing <br />structures such as a silo. Some stealth towers could be shorter than some pine trees. The staff is also <br />looking at attaching new telecommunications equipment to the electric power transmission lines. <br />Commissioner Brown said that she was glad to see the part about the new payment schedule <br />and is interested about the consultants and what type it would be. She asked if the consultant would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.