Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
`.:'.�.w.ia" ...'.::...a a...:...t.: .... ;..:u:d'.:aY:Yi::a.:.....n.: ...... ..... .. .. .. .. ........... ..... ... .. ...... .....ua. _....u............i.......1a ,...u..lu...i..a..a. u.u....iau . 1f.. 1. anau ...............u�..�....a..aL ..d.....__... <br />.1.1 <br />1 instead of 20 feet above the utility pole. Regarding periodic inspections, there has been a <br />2 suggestion that instead of the flat *fee ($8,500 for Class B and $10,000 for Class A), that it will be <br />3 $7,500 for Class A to be escrowed in a fund to pay off the consultant costs. For Class B it will <br />4 be $6,000 for consultant escrow and $2,500 to review fees in both cases. Also regarding the <br />5 periodic inspections, there has been a modification that when a co- located tenant comes on after <br />6 the tower is placed, then the major inspection will occur 36 months after that time. There will <br />7 still be annual visual inspections. <br />8 <br />9 The Master Telecommunication Plan will be a plan that could be adopted by the Board of County <br />10 Commissioners to set up a network of public and quasi- public sites that will be available to <br />11 locate telecommunication towers. This will have a community benefit because it will help in <br />12 using telecommunication services for public safety purposes. If the County Commissioners do <br />13 not approve the MTP, the rest bf the ordinance is still valid. <br />14 <br />15 Regarding distance requirements between towers, there are some provisions that allow for <br />16 exceptions to those standards. For example, if the tower is full, the %z mile requirement would <br />17 not work. Regarding the balloon test, being able to see the balloon above the tree line is not a <br />.18 justification for denying the application. The balloon test is only for perspective. <br />19 <br />20 At this point, Davis went over the handouts from the various telecommunication providers. The <br />21 first handout was from Spectra Site. It was suggested by Spectra Site that "unforeseen events" be <br />22 defined further in the ordinance. <br />23 <br />24 Katz said that it seems that there may be justification for taking the tower down that has a single <br />25 user and putting up a tower that has more than one user. He said that, if that is the case, we may <br />26 have a tower that is 150 feet being replaced by a tower that is 200 feet. It was answered that a <br />z 7 higher tower would not be allowed. The tower could not deviate from the original Special Use <br />28 Permit approval. <br />29 <br />30 Schofield said that it seems we could simplify the process of co- location on new towers and say <br />31 that in certain cases new towers can stay in house and be managed by staff. Benedict said that we <br />32 still have to go through the process for a special use permit. <br />33 <br />34 McAdams said that once a Special Use Permit is issued, that is it. The only way to increase the <br />35 height of the tower is to get a new permit or modify the existing permit. <br />36 <br />37 Schofield said that what he was saying was whether or not language should be included in the <br />38 new ordinance that at least encourages someone with a single tower with a single user at 150 feet <br />39 to co - locate three more users if 25 more feet were added. <br />40 <br />41 Benedict said that we should proceed with the incentive package that we have at this time. He <br />42 asked for a vote on the-language for item 1. <br />43 <br />44 Chair Gooding -Ray said that her preference would be to make a list of the changes and then vote <br />45 on the recommendations. <br />46 <br />106 <br />