Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
t . <br />•f <br />81 <br />ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY REGARDING <br />PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO <br />TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS <br />Liz Hill (American Tower) <br />1. instead of paying a $10,000.00 application fee for a new tower, amend Ordinance <br />to allow that money to be put into an escrow account. <br />2. Application fee schedule is unfair compared to application fees for other types of <br />buildings /development. <br />3. Liability issues related to persons inspecting towers for structural stability after <br />tower has been built. <br />4. Can review period for towers be performed at time of new co- location rather than <br />every 36 months? Can a structural report be submitted at these times rather than <br />an inspection? <br />5. Will periodic review of towers only be applied to new towers erected after <br />Ordinance adoption, or will it be retro - active? What criteria will be used in <br />inspections? <br />..rv.av �rd,llC <br />International. Duke Communications Services LPNC Inc.)' v.vwl' <br />1. Concerns with lower tower heights and bifurcated approval process. <br />2. Major concern over one time per year submittal requirement. Flexibility needed in <br />application submittallreview periods. <br />3. Need for clarification on definition of existing structure. <br />4. General confusion over language regarding antennas permitted as accessory <br />uses. <br />5. Question regarding the number of structures located In the County that are tall <br />enough to provide good co- location opportunities. <br />6. General confusion over the proposed section regarding co- locations, stealth and <br />non - stealth antennas. <br />7. Desire to keep co- location approvals at the staff level. <br />8. Review and inspection fees related to telecommunication facility approvals. <br />