Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Tom King - COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE'OF ORANGE COUNT? <br />f <br />99" <br />COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF <br />ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING <br />COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS <br />1: APPROVAL PROCESS. As written, the Ordinance contemplates all applications <br />seeking approval of communications towers less than One Hundred Fifty <br />11501 feet in height be heard by the Board of Adjustments, and all <br />communications towers greater than One Hundred Fifty 11501 feet in height <br />be heard by the County Commissioners. There Is no logical basis for this <br />bifurcated approval process. The Board of Adjustments will be just as well <br />suited to hear applications for the. taller communications towers. It will <br />likewise be a more experienced board to hear such applications since it has <br />so In the past until this time. The Board of Adjustments should be treated as <br />a quasi- judicial board, which makes for a more formal and judicial setting in <br />the hearing of the special use application. The Board of Adjustments will act <br />upon evidence taken and apply that evidence to the. standards promulgated <br />by the County Commissioners. The applications to be heard are technical <br />applications, to be decided upon by objective standards. It is unnecessary for <br />the County Commissioners, policy makers, to be burdened with this extra <br />responsibility, and for a . technical application to be potentially treated 'as a <br />political issue. <br />2. LIMITATIONS ON HEARING DATES. Section 8.4.1.a. Limiting hearing dates to <br />twice per year is not warranted. Likewise, it is not fair that every proposed <br />communications tower be presented in January of each year. An annual <br />meeting for carriers to discuss plans for the year, to the extent they have <br />been defined, is a good idea. But is it is not fair to limit applications to those <br />communications towers which have been identified in January of each year. <br />None of us is that wise and foreseeing in all cases. The following points are <br />made in support of these statements. <br />a. The Speed of Light. Wireless communications operates at the speed of light <br />literally. Wireless deployments take pace at break neck speeds. This <br />is a fast paced industry. The quick pace is driven by many factors, <br />Including, but not limited to, the demands of existing customers for <br />better coverage, the demands of existing customers for new and <br />additional services, the need to most the growing capacity demands <br />of the wireless network, the obligation to meet the expectations of <br />capital markets in the deployment of services for return on <br />investment, and the obligation to provide wireless service in a given <br />area 'in a given time frame by the Federal Communications <br />Commission. This is just a small part of the picture. <br />b. Limitation of New Technologies. Limiting hearings to twice per year would <br />unnecessarily handicap the wireless industry in its deployment of new <br />and additional coverage and technologies. Wireless companies need <br />flexibility to on a moments notice deploy new technology. The <br />Ordinance as written would prevent such rapid deployment. <br />C. Unforeseen Events. Sometimes it becomes necessary to construct a new <br />communications tower because of unforeseen events. Examples <br />include condemnations of. existing communications towers for road <br />projects, casualty of existing communications towers, blocking of <br />