Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Sep 04 02 01:37p American Tower Corp. (704) 948 -8545 p,3 <br />r <br />73 <br />Orange County Planning Board <br />c% Mr. Craig Benedict <br />September 4, 2002 <br />Page 2 <br />B. January Pre - application Meeting: We respectfully disagree that in each <br />and every case, the licensed wireless communication carriers will know <br />for a certainty, by January of each year, their respective build -out plans <br />in a particular area. The proposed ordinance does not make any . <br />accommodation for this or, I might add, for emergency placement of <br />temporary communication facilities that may be required or desirable in <br />times of natural or other disasters as a result of which landline <br />communications are unavailable 'or overloaded. We request some <br />accommodation for emergencies or other considerations that are not <br />foreseen or identifiable at the start of any given year. To enact a Iaw <br />otherwise provides the County and the industry no flexibility, and <br />overlooks the public safety aspects of wireless communications. <br />C. Inspections and Re- certification: The proposed ordinance seems at <br />odds with public statements of staff that the inspections and <br />certification requirements contained therein apply only to facilities <br />constructed after its effective date. To the contrary, §6.18.4(e)(5)(c) <br />states that all existing towers shall undergo a structural inspection <br />within 12 months of the date the ordinance is adopted Second; the <br />additional structural, inspections and certification requirements are all <br />contained in § 6.18.4, under the preface that "all telecommunication <br />towers must meet the following standards.... " (emphasis supplied). <br />Consistent with staff s public comments on August 26, that preface <br />should read "All telecommunication towers approved and constructed <br />following the effective date of this ordinance must meet the following <br />standards:" Any other approach, we suggest, applies later standards to <br />existing towers in an ex post facto manner. <br />I County inspections: The staff inspections identified in <br />§6.18.4(e)(2)(b) are vague and provide no guidance to the industry. In <br />addition, presumably tower owners have no voice or control over the <br />individuals chosen by the County to conduct these inspections. These <br />provisions also raise a significant question of liability for damage to <br />persons or property caused by the inspections or methodologies used.. <br />Controlled access to our facilities is a high priority, it is a guarantee we <br />make to our tenant wireless communication companies; and it is <br />among the feasons we restrict access to those with the proper training, <br />credentials, certification and oversight. By these provisions, the <br />County is taking upon itself these responsibilities. We would ask that <br />the Boards and County consider, instead, a detailed checklist of the <br />standards against which a facility is to be evaluated, and allow the <br />industry to perform these evaluations and report those results — <br />