Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield <br /> 2 the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a <br /> 3 two acre area. It.is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list <br /> 6 would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these <br /> 7 companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of <br /> 8 competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and <br /> 9 competitive. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this <br /> 12 business. ATT will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They do <br /> 13 not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want <br /> 16 notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable <br /> 19 basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is <br /> 20 to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New users would be <br /> 21 added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to <br /> 22 co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as <br /> 23 comprehensive list as possible. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 A motion was made by Commissioner Wllhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to <br /> 26 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than <br /> 27 January 16, 1996. <br /> 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 29 <br /> 30 (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations <br /> 31 This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a <br /> 32 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding <br /> 33 screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The <br /> 34 Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board <br /> 35 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January <br /> 36 16, 1996. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> 39 . . Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be assured that the accessory buildings would <br /> 40 not be visible to adjacent roads and property. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Mary Wiles stated that by reviewing the Site Plan and the landscape on the property a <br /> 43 determination would be made. It would not apply in cases where the proposal was to plant <br /> 44 vegetation that would eventually grow up to be an adequate shield. In this particular case, the <br /> 45 shield would have to be in-place and already existing within a wooded area. <br />