Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
-- �_ -,::�: gay:,.,,.......;,.. �, .._.._.._.._...,...,.:- ...� -�.. ,,,...,.,.....�.. <br />AUG.27.2002 3 :19PM ORANGE CTY MGR <br />i. <br />s <br />NO.913 P.8i11 <br />W <br />Ordinance should be revised to set out a separate section altogether <br />which simply deals with the approval process for colocation of <br />antennas on an existing communications tower. This separate section <br />should do the following: <br />a. Outline exactly what information is required to be submitted in <br />the application package. This information will not be the same <br />as it Is for a new communications tower; and <br />b. Outline the administrative approval process. <br />4. UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.2,b,' I think the intent of the last <br />sentence of this section is to prohibit the construction of a new free <br />standing communications tower in a utility right of way that is not part <br />of the structure supporting the electrical wires: That Is fine; however, <br />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 <br />follows: "For purposes of this Section 6.18.2.b, no freestanding <br />towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless services shall be <br />permitted without a speclal use permit and approval by the• appropriate <br />board.' Otherwise, this sentence could be interpreted to prohibit all <br />new .free standing communications towers. <br />b. GOVERNMENT FRANCHISED UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.3.e.7. <br />Item a udder .this section addresses non - stealth rooftop applications. <br />However, item 7 thereunder takes a new direction and concerns <br />colocation on. -utility poles located In the public rights of way. This <br />issue should be treated as a separate section. It appears to be <br />misplaced under Section 6.18.3.e.7. Once this issue is resolved, the <br />question presented is why. is colocation on utility poles located in <br />public rights of way treated differently from colocations on utility <br />poles on private property? What is the distinction? Also, to the <br />extent that Orange County does not own the utility pole, does it still <br />have the right to allow colocation without the participation of the <br />utility company that may own and operate the pole? Finally, how is <br />this section, different than Section 6.18.2.b. which already addresses <br />the use of utility poles? if the purpose of the section is to overcome <br />past bureaucratic obstacles to this type of Installation, that is fine, but <br />distinguish more closely the parameters of Collocating on utility poles <br />located. on public versus private property. <br />