Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Tom King --COMMENTS REG <br />•r <br />,GNU FHF_ ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ( <br />ORANGE COU <br />signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of the communications tower, or <br />: the need to replace an existing communications tower for capacity issues. <br />These are not issues that can be foreseen far enough in advance so that <br />proper application can be made. <br />e. Hearing Overload. If all applications are bundled together for two (2) <br />hearings, it will be an all day or all night hearing. This is unfair to the <br />citizens of Orange County and unfair to the wireless industry. These <br />will be very technical applications with expert testimony which will <br />take some time to present. The applicable board will want sufficient <br />time to ask questions, to 'hear evidence, and to contemplate the <br />matter. This cannot happen if there are six (6) applications to be <br />heard which may take two (2) hours each to present. This is not <br />logistically feasible. <br />3. COLOCATION. Section 6.18.2.d.1. This section states that "telecommunications antennas may be <br />placed on existing communications towers within the context of that section of the <br />Ordinance concerning "telecommunications facilities as accessory uses This <br />statement appears to be misplaced. The preceding section 6.18.1, second <br />paragraph, already addresses colocations in any scenario It appears. Of. course, <br />Section 16.18.1 is titled in regard to "Stealth Telecommunications Towers '. All of <br />this makes the Ordinance confusing regarding the simple concept of colocation. The <br />Ordinance should be revised to set out a separate section altogether which simply <br />deals with the approval process for colocation of antennas on an existing <br />communications tower. This separate section should do the following: <br />a• Outline exactly what information is required to be submitted in the ' application package. <br />information will not be the same as it is for a new communications tower; <br />and <br />b• Outline the administrative approval process. <br />4. UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.2.b. I think the intent of the last sentence of this section is to <br />prohibit the construction of a new free standing communications tower in a utility <br />right of way that is not part of the structure supporting the electrical wires. That is <br />fine; however, the sentence as written could be taken out of context. I think a <br />qualifier should be added to this sentence to clarify the intent, as follows: "For <br />purposes of this Section 6.18.2.b, no freestanding towers constructed exclusively <br />for personal wireless services shall be permitted without a special use permit and <br />approval by the appropriate board." Otherwise, this sentence could be interpreted to <br />prohibit all new free standing communications towers. <br />5. GOVERNMENT FRANCHISED UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.3.e.7. Item a under this section <br />addresses non - stealth rooftop applications. However, item 7 thereunder takes a new <br />direction and concerns colocation on utility poles located in the public rights of way. <br />This issue should be treated as a separate section. it appears to be misplaced under <br />Section 6.18.3.e.7. Once this issue is resolved, the question presented is why is <br />colocation on utility poles located in public rights of way treated differently from <br />colocations on utility poles on private property? What is the distinction? Also, to <br />the extent that Orange County does not own the utility pole, does it still have the <br />right to allow colocation without the participation of the utility company that may <br />own and operate the pole? Finally, how is this section different than Section <br />6.18.2.b. which already addresses the use of utility poles? If the purpose of the <br />