Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-01-1996 - IX-E
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 05-01-1996
>
Agenda - 05-01-1996 - IX-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2013 12:18:24 PM
Creation date
10/23/2013 12:18:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/1/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-E
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960501
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
27 <br /> Response to November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments (see attached minutes) <br /> 1. Minimizing the number of new towers <br /> A major concern of industry representatives related to the means proposed by <br /> which we would assure that adequate provision had been made to minimize the <br /> number of new towers by sharing space on existing or new towers. <br /> Encouraging Use Of Existing Towers <br /> The Zoning Ordinance now requires that efforts to locate on an existing tower <br /> be documented There are no standards, however, by which to evaluate the <br /> documentation provided. <br /> Proposed Documentation Process: The amendment presented for <br /> public hearing in November, 1995 included a requirement that the <br /> applicant submit copies of letters sent to all tower owners within one <br /> mile of the proposed site requesting information such as availability of <br /> space to lease, tower height and strength. Also required was a copy of <br /> responses received. One concern raised was that the applicant must rely <br /> on the tower owner's response to requests for information, and delays <br /> could result if the tower owner did not prepare the needed information <br /> in a timely manner. The proposed wording was thought to place an <br /> implicit burden of responsibility on the owners of existing towers to <br /> provide detailed engineering and other information,upon the demand of <br /> potential applicants, which could be time-consuming and costly. <br /> The proposed revision continues to require submittal of the same <br /> specific information concerning availability of space to lease, tower <br /> height and strength as was proposed in the initial draft. However, the <br /> proposed revision eliminates specific requirements as to how <br /> communication between the applicant and the tower owner is to occur. <br /> The applicant must contact and coordinate with the tower owners in <br /> order to obtain the requested information. The proposed revision <br /> focuses on the outcome of that contact,rather than the process. <br /> Location of Towers Considered for Possible Co-location: Typically, <br /> the range within which a new tower can perform its function within the <br /> communications network is on the order of 1/4 mile from the proposed <br /> site. There is some variability, however, depending on factors such as <br /> the tower height and topography. <br /> The area within which towers must be identified and evaluated is <br /> proposed to be at least 1 mile for towers 200 feet or taller (as originally <br /> proposed) and one-half mile for towers shorter than 200 feet. In <br /> addition the applicant must provide an engineers certification indicating <br /> the widest range from the proposed site within which the equipment <br /> could perform its function within the network. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.