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
_ ... .... <br />....- -- .._....... <br />Tom King - Re: Ordinance; A*r dment - Page <br />.;. <br />82 <br />From: "Jeffrey W Riggins" <jwdggin @dukecomsvcs.cgm> <br />To: "Tom Mng" <tking @co.orange.nc.us> <br />Date: 8/22/02 4:31 PM <br />Subject: Re: Ordinance Amendment <br />Tom, <br />I reviewed the draft amendments on your website and would like to offer the <br />following comments/questions. I attempted to compare the amendments to the <br />existing ordinance that is available on your webpage but the sections and <br />page numbers didn't match up. Therefore, my comments are based on the <br />amendments only. <br />1) The provision for limiting new applications to two times per year Is <br />very restrictive. I agree with the Board of Adjustment opinion that new <br />applications should be processed on as needed basis. <br />2) 6.18.1 - Why did you limit the height on stealth towers to 75'? This <br />seems inconsistent with your philosophy of encouraging towers designed for <br />multiple carriers. <br />3) Does the language in 6. 18.1 allow colocations on electric transmission <br />towers with an administrative review? i see the reference to transmission <br />towers, silos, and such in the definition for Existing Structure/Building <br />but I didn't find any language that permitted colocations on such <br />structures other than the reference in 6.18.1. Also, I would suggest <br />adding water tanks to the list of existing structures. <br />4) In section 6.18.1, you state that antennas may be placed on existing <br />structures if the equipment doesn't extend more that 20' above the <br />structure and heighttsetback limitations are met. I can live with the 20' <br />limitation but the setback requirement will eliminate the use of many of <br />our transmission towers. Keep In mind that transmission lines are often <br />built along property boundaries so a setback requirement would make it <br />Impossible to use those towers. <br />5) Section 6.18.2.d.1 says that antennas may be placed on existing towers <br />but I'm not sure that your intended for that to mean transmission towers as <br />well. <br />6) Would the language in 6.18.3 impact colorations on transmission towers? <br />7) Is section 6.18.3.e.7 referring to colocations on distribution power <br />poles (like the ones that run along the streets) owned by Duke Power? <br />8) In Section 6.18.4.b, you require a statement prepared by a professional <br />engineer certified in telecommunication facility design. You might want to <br />research this requirement because I am not aware of any such certification. <br />The statement that you are referring to is usually prepared by a structural <br />engineer that is a PE. <br />9) In Section 6.18.4.e, the inspection requirements are excessive. <br />10) What does Duke Energy need to do to submit properties to be included in <br />the Master Telecommunications Plan that is described in 6.18.5? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.