Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />107 <br />1 For item 1, the language was changed to say that the tower could be reconstructed, replaced, or <br />.2 modified, but not extended in an unforeseen event. <br />3 <br />4 Item 2 was a suggestion to be more specific about equal or less visual impact. The Planning <br />5 Board discussed how this was very subjective. The board agreed to leave this to the staff and to <br />6 add "6.18" to "under this Section." <br />7 <br />8 Benedict mentioned that there was a comment that if there is a tower provider and there are four <br />9 user spots on there, how do we make sure that they will allow other users to enter the pole. <br />10 There needs to be language in the ordinance to say that other users should be able to enter the <br />11 pole and given regular market rent and not something unusual. We do not want a tower owner <br />12 being prohibitive of other users. A consultant could help to determine the market value. <br />13 <br />14 Chair Gooding -Ray asked about Spectra Site's question #3 (related to shifting the timeframe for <br />1s inspections) and if we had addressed it. Benedict said yes. We are making the modification that <br />16 they suggested because we are not having inspections three years after initial installation but <br />17 three years from any co- located users. <br />18 <br />19 McAdams asked what justification we had to force the towers to be inspected every three years. <br />20 Benedict said that facilities of this nature are more peculiar than most and there are not any <br />21 guarantees of the useful life of the towers. The common practice in the U. S. is inspection of <br />22 these facilities. <br />23 <br />24 Schofield made reference to the annual inspections and said that this is not a good use of time <br />25 because there is no evidence that he has seen that towers are in any way vulnerable to structure <br />26 deterioration as well as the fact that it is not a publicly accessed site. He feels that the annual <br />a 7 inspections are not necessary and burdensome to staff. He thinks there needs to be greater <br />28 scrutiny before creating a mandatory workload on the staff. <br />29 <br />30 Price made reference to the public hearing where it was mentioned to inspect for loose bolts. She <br />31 has a concern that existing towers could also fall under the same rules of inspection. <br />32 <br />33 The Board discussed whether to have inspections if there is not an adequate fall zone. <br />34 <br />35 Katz said that if there is a tower on private property, the County should not get involved in <br />36 inspections. <br />37 <br />38 Benedict said that the tower company could provide an inspection report from a reputable <br />39 inspector and the County would not have to do the annual inspection. <br />40 <br />41 Chair Gooding -Ray asked if Spectra Site did annual inspections. Jason Catalini of Spectra Site <br />42 said that they had maintenance personnel. <br />43 <br />44 Price said that it seems that it would be in the best interest of everybody to keep the towers in <br />45 good condition, otherwise the tower owners will go out of business. <br />46 <br />