Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-01-1996 - 9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 10-01-1996
>
Agenda - 10-01-1996 - 9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2013 12:49:25 PM
Creation date
11/5/2013 12:49:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/1/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19961001
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
NSN ORD-1996-040 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Telecommunication Towers
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 1990-1999\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
33 <br /> July 23, 1996 J <br /> Page 4 <br /> should be unnecessary to "assess whether the tower could be structurally <br /> strengthened." Submitting the required information should be dependent on <br /> whether the tower can be used for co-location. I suggest drafting Section <br /> 6.8.17a.1 .(d) to contain a conditional alternative.as follows: <br /> "Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search range within <br /> which the tower equipment can function as intended. The following <br /> information shall be provided for all existing towers within he search range: <br /> (a) Tower height; <br /> (b) Existing tower users; <br /> (c) Planned tower users, if available; <br /> (d) If the tower'owner will consider co-location at a height usable by <br /> the applicant, then <br /> 1 ) Whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to <br /> be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural <br /> instability or radio frequency interference; and/or <br /> 2) If the proposed antenna cannot be accommodated on the <br /> existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be <br /> structurally strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters <br /> and related equipment could be protected from electro- <br /> magnetic interference, and generally describe the means and <br /> projected cost of shared use of the existing tower." <br /> 3) To my knowledge, only Orange County interprets the General <br /> Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision <br /> Ordinance.. Most transmission sites are on small tracts of leased property. <br /> We ask for additional relief from this interpretation. <br /> 4) The-area in which property owners are to be notified of a Class B <br /> Special Use Permit application is proposed to be increased from 500 to <br /> 1 ,000 feet. A Class B Special Use Permit can only be issued for towers <br /> under 200;faet. There is no reason to notify a property owner 1 ,000 feet <br /> away from a 200 foot tower, unless you are planning to increase the notice <br /> area for all Special Use Permits. The standards for a Class B Special Use <br /> Permit under your current ordinance makes any concerns of residents 1 ,000 <br /> feet away from a 200 foot tower very hard to address. Any impact of a <br /> 200 foot (or lower) tower on a property owner 1 ,000 feet away is going to <br /> be very difficult to establish in the context of a quasi-judicial Special Use <br /> Permit hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.