Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
61 <br /> roads and major view corridors,and other locations as deemed necessary by the <br /> Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the proposed tower. <br /> 3) Revise 8.8.17al(d)to clarify that tower height is measured from ground level to <br /> the highest part of the support structure. <br /> 4) Add 8.8.17a.2(n)to require that compliance with FCC emission standards be <br /> demonstrated by including monitoring through periodic testing of equipment <br /> and submittal of results to the Planning Department. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment,including the <br /> revisions identified. (The proposed amendment and revisions attachments to these <br /> minutes on pages ) <br /> Willis introduced Jerry Eatman of North Carolina General Counsel for Sprint <br /> Cellular and Gray Styers as regional counsel for BellSouth,indicating they would <br /> answer questions from the Planning Board. Letters from these representatives are <br /> attachments to these minutes on pages <br /> Mr.Eatman expressed concern regarding information requirement on existing <br /> structures. If the owner of an existing tower refused the request for co-locating,and <br /> would not allow access to the tower,analysis could not be done to provide the <br /> additional information required on the existing tower. <br /> Jobsis asked how Staff would respond to such a concern. Willis responded that if <br /> such was the reason for being unable to provide that information,then <br /> documentation from the applicant would indicate a good faith effort on that part and <br /> would be accepted. <br /> Brooks asked if there could be another approach. Could the County require that <br /> those who have towers on their property give permission for other users for the same <br /> tower. Barrows noted that one of the proposals is that for new towers a letter be <br /> presented stating that the tower will be shared. It was agreed that requirement could <br /> be made of new towers,but not of existing towers. <br /> Jobsis asked how it is determined when a tower is full up to capacity. Willis <br /> responded that would depend upon what the structure would support and whether it <br /> is feasible to do so. Mr.Eatman agreed and noted that the increased need will cause <br /> users to want to make the maximum use of existing facilities/towers. He also noted <br /> that new towers will be designed to make maximum use. <br /> Brooks asked if it would be in the economic best interest of telecommunications <br /> companies to"tap on"to an existing tower and improve it to today's standards. <br /> Mr.Eatman responded that it is almost always to their benefit to locate on an <br /> existing facility. Mr.Styers agreed noting that almost all mobile communicators in <br /> North Carolina have agreements with each other to allow and encourage co- <br /> location. <br /> Barrows asked about Mr. Styers' concern in his letter regarding co-location on an <br /> existing structure that was not in compliance and having to meet additional setback <br /> requirements. Willis responded that the concern with this issue is increasing the <br /> amount of non-conformity by further reducing the setbacks. If placing equipment on <br /> an existing structure did not make it more non-conforming that would be another <br /> issue. Mr.Styers noted that he felt some allowances should be allowed in such <br /> instances and Willis agreed. Willis continued that wording to the effect that height <br />