Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
99 <br /> 1 setback regulations and other Special Use Request Ordinance. He indicated that he would <br /> 2 work with staff to present examples of how the Special Use Request process and subdivision <br /> 3 process work together to create burdens on their industry. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 14ft 11M North Carolina General Counsel ft SorW C4ftt r, expressed several <br /> 6 concerns. He mentioned that the requirement to share tower space indicates that a letter needs <br /> 7 to be sent to all owners of towers within a one mile radius. This raises the concern for industry <br /> 8 staff that they could be requested to locate a mile from their original requested site. The site <br /> 9 locations are not flexible and would not provide the necessary coverage if they were required to <br /> 10 locate at another location. There is a real financial motivation to locate on existing towers <br /> 11 where that is possible. The additional paperwork will not increase that motivation. He also felt <br /> 12 that requiring that applicants for new towers send notification to a preexisting list is not workable <br /> 13 for industry staff. The Special Use Permit process already requires co-location wherever <br /> 14 possible. This adds additional paperwork and questions about who gets on the list. He asked <br /> 15 for clarification that the buffer is to be around the tower compound rather than the entire <br /> 16 perimeter of the tract. Also, that the setback is from the base of the tower to the adjacent <br /> 17 property line rather than the base of the tower to the lease line. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Mary Willis indicated that the buffer is to be around the tower compound but that the set <br /> 20 back is from the base of the tower to the lease line. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Mr. Eatman asked that the setback requirement be reconsidered so that it deals with <br /> 23 adjoining property owners and adjoining property lines rather than simply increasing the size of <br /> 24 the parcel that needs to be leased. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 £� P q <br /> , agreed with the previous comments. He requested <br /> 27 that a open discussion be held 91 try and County staff, the Planning Board, citizens , and <br /> 28 County Commissioners to facilitate developing standards. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner WIlhoit asked if it was true that land in an easement area could not be <br /> 31 cultivated. He mentioned that many of the issues to be addressed in the application do not <br /> 32 relate to telecommunications, but to the tower itself. He asked that the Planning Board address <br /> 33 the issue of whether the Special Use Permit ought to apply to a tower. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Mary Willis replied that the subdivision regulations addressed that issue. Land leased for <br /> 36 this particular purpose is considered under subdivision regulations and must receive approval in <br /> 37 order to create a lot for the principal use as opposed to just having an easement. It would not <br /> 38 specifically prohibit cultivation of that land. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Gordon asked if the buffer was related to the lease line because other <br /> 41 nearby lots could have homes on them. She also asked for further clarification regarding the <br /> 42 objection to mailing notification to a specified list. <br /> 43 <br />