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
37 <br />10. Section 8. & =17a (Telecommunications Towers), Subsection 8.8.17a.1a (Additional <br />Information), Paragraph d) <br />Change from (Staff): <br />Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers shall not be located <br />within '/= mile of any existing monopole,, lattice or guyed <br />telecommunications tower. This distance restriction shall not apply to any <br />monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications tower owned by a public, <br />not for profit agency or entity. nor to facilities co- located on existing <br />buildings /structures. <br />Changed to (Planning Board): <br />Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers shall not be located <br />within' /2 mile of any existing monopole, lattice or guyed <br />telecommunications tower. This distance restriction shall not apply to any <br />monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications tower owned by a public, <br />not for profit agency or entity nor o telecommunications equipm ., <br />faeilities co- located on existing buildings /structures. �terprow-w, p allowed when the�applicant can sufficiently demonstietttfist,!) a <br />space orr the existingt te/epoommunications, tower!¬� avaitabte� o� 2� the <br />applicant hastma &qd- rait effort to, negodi3twapagmennenW wit . -the- owner of <br />the - existing tebteffi a tions- tower -and hw- beet vOnt6ocerssfak wh ch must <br />bedocumentea irti or` omnlat the 4hatelecm no <br />existfngF tel rrr r t t ts£towerlis notcornpaUbto-rtni <br />:. , <br />telecommunfcat%n eu /patent of the applicants <br />or- 4J� adequate coverage by <br />the applicant ba�met at the location of the existing telecommunications <br />tower; or5), -- (ehecommunications tower canal. asdnab/ <br />modified to a 'additional co -location by the app/tcank ; Ex3 ceptibns <br />shall only b4el _ a.- ifrorrough analysis of the. searctrareapfovided by the <br />applicant rs pe ` e County's consultant orStaff indkeffing {that <br />coverts on an existing tower at the four- calrfercapacity or other <br />user= achieved. There must be a, 80%approvafvote: of the <br />dec finding to pass the exception & t ddi <br />Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.