Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />10 111 <br />S <br />VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan) <br />Item #7: Ensuring that existing and new tower standards work legally. <br />Schofield made reference to the previous vote and asked if it was for new and old towers. <br />Benedict said that it was only on new towers, except existing towers will have annual electrical <br />inspections. <br />Schofield said that there was no language about requiring inspections for existing towers, which <br />he thinks is needed the most. <br />Price said that she had asked about this at the public hearing and the County Attorney said <br />something about it. Benedict said that having the word "current" brought us up to date with the <br />towers. The majority of this has to do with new tower installations. <br />Katz said that the tower providers actually do inspections of their own towers every quarter. He <br />said that if we could get the quarterly reports on even the older towers, then there would be a <br />good indication about whether the towers are maintaining structural integrity. <br />MOTION: Schofield moved that the inspection standards be uniform for new and existing <br />towers. Seconded by Tadd. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 4; (Goodwin, Lasris, Schofield and Tadd) No, 5(Gooding -Ray, Bryan, <br />McAdams, Katz, and Price) <br />The motion did not pass. <br />MOTION: McAdams moved to continue the meeting past the adjournment time. Seconded <br />by Katz. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 4 (Goodwin, Bryan, McAdams, and Katz) <br />Item #9: 8.8.17a.I a.d on page 19 to add an exception to the %s mile separation between towers <br />requirement. <br />MOTION: McAdams moved to accept this language. Seconded by Katz. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 3 (Gooding -Ray, Price, Bryan — he thinks you should only have to <br />stay one of the five and he is not satisfied that these are adequate to protect the public.) <br />Item #10: Davis' language on this same page as follows: "Exceptions to this requirement shall <br />only be allowed after thorough analysis of the search area by the County's consultant, indicating <br />that coverage is not possible with the existing tower at its fovir- carrier capacity with an 80% <br />approval vote of the board for this specific finding." <br />