Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
........... ' _ _..... ... _ . <br />' AIJG.27.2002 3.18PM ORANGE CTY MGR 140.913 P.7/11 <br />i <br />•s <br />91 <br />the deployment of services for return on investment, and <br />the obligation to provide wireless service in a given area <br />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 <br />twice per year would unnecessarily handicap the wireless <br />industry in its deployment of new and additional coverage <br />and technologies. Wireless companies need flexibility to <br />on a moments notice deploy new technology. The <br />Ordinance as , written would prevent such rapid <br />deployment. <br />C. Unforeseen Events. Sometimes it becomes necessary to <br />construct a new communications tower because of <br />unforeseen events. Examples include condemnations of <br />existing communications towers for road projects, <br />casualty of existing communications towers, blocking of <br />signals from new construction necessitating a relocation <br />of the communications tower, or the need to replace an <br />existing communications tower for capacity issues. <br />These are not issues that can be foreseen far enough in <br />advance so that proper application can be made. <br />d. Hearing Overload. If all applications are bundled together <br />for two (2) hearings, it will be an all day -or all night <br />hearing. This is unfair to the citizens of Orange County <br />and unfair to the wireless industry. These will be very <br />technical applications with expert testimony which will <br />take some time to present. The applicable board will <br />want-sufficient time to ask questions, to hear evidence, <br />and to contemplate the matter. This cannot happen If <br />there are six (6) applications to be heard which may take <br />two (2) hours each to present. This Is not logistically <br />feasible. <br />3. COLOCATION. Section 6.18.2.d.1. This section states that <br />"telecommunications antennas may be placed on existing <br />communications towers within the context of that section of the <br />Ordinance conedming "telecommunications facilities as accessory <br />uses ". 'This statement appears to be misplaced. The preceding <br />section 6.18.1, second paragraph, already addresses colorations in <br />any scenario It appears. Of course, Section 16.18.1 is titled In regard <br />to "Stealth Telecommunications Towers ". All of this makes the <br />Ordinance confusing regarding the simple concept of coloeation. The <br />