Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
.... .. : 5.�...w .. .. w:i.- ......- • ..... .. ......_.....,..:.......: ......_........ _....... .... ,.- ...,....._.xx....�. .... .:........_ _..A..i...�. �Wh��: v�2�.t�.i... 41.�.`.':L�1 <br />10 111 <br />1 <br />2 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan) <br />3 <br />4 Item #7: Ensuring that existing and new tower standards work legally. <br />s <br />6 Schofield made reference to the previous vote and asked if it was for new and old towers. <br />7 Benedict said that it was only on new towers, except existing towers will have annual electrical <br />a inspections. <br />9 <br />10 Schofield said that there was no language about requiring inspections for existing towers, which <br />11 he thinks is needed the most. <br />12 <br />13 Price said that she had asked about this at the public hearing and the County Attorney said <br />14 something about it. Benedict said that having the word "current" brought us up to date with the <br />1s towers. The majority of this has to do with new tower installations. <br />16 <br />17 Katz said that the tower providers actually do inspections of their own towers every quarter. He <br />18 said that if we could get the quarterly reports on even the older towers, then there would be a <br />19 good indication about whether the towers are maintaining structural integrity. <br />20 <br />21 MOTION: Schofield moved that the inspection standards be uniform for new and existing <br />22 towers. Seconded by Tadd. <br />23 <br />24 VOTE: Ayes, 4; (Goodwin, Lasris, Schofield and Tadd) No, 5(Gooding -Ray, Bryan, <br />25 McAdams, Katz, and Price) <br />26 <br />27 The motion did not pass. <br />28 <br />29 MOTION: McAdams moved to continue the meeting past the adjournment time. Seconded <br />30 by Katz. <br />31 <br />32 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 4 (Goodwin, Bryan, McAdams, and Katz) <br />33 <br />34 Item #9: 8.8.17a.1a.d on page 19 to add an exception to the %x mile separation between towers <br />35 requirement. <br />36 <br />37 MOTION: McAdams moved to accept this language. Seconded by Katz. <br />38 <br />39 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 3 (Gooding -Ray, Price, Bryan — he thinks you should only have to <br />40 stay one of the five and he is not satisfied that these are adequate to protect the public.) <br />41 <br />42 Item #10: Davis' language on this same page as follows: "Exceptions to this requirement shall <br />43 only be allowed after thorough analysis of the search area by the County's consultant, indicating <br />44 that coverage is not possible with the existing tower at its foi r- carrier capacity with an 80% <br />45 approval vote of the board for this specific finding." <br />46 <br />