Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-05-94 - VIII-J
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 10-05-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 10-05-94 - VIII-J
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2016 8:25:09 AM
Creation date
10/7/2016 8:23:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/5/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VIII-J
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
11 <br /> The Orange County Board of Adjustment has grown <br /> increasingly concerned about the increasing <br /> number of applications for communications towers. <br /> The Board has reviewed five Special Use <br /> applications for towers since 1990. The concerns <br /> relate to the number of towers and the reasons <br /> they cannot co-locate, i.e. , loading <br /> capabilities, frequency incompatibility, and <br /> directional focusing of signals. However, in some <br /> instances there may be situations where towers <br /> can co-locate. <br /> The proposed amendments would require an <br /> applicant to first look into co-locating <br /> communication equipment on an existing tower. If <br /> use of an existing tower was not feasible, then <br /> approval of a Special Use Permit for a new tower <br /> could be considered. However, permit approval <br /> would include provisions related to the sharing <br /> of space on the tower with other users in the <br /> future. <br /> At the public hearing, David Helms, with Cellular <br /> One, indicated his support for the amendment but <br /> he was concerned about other communications <br /> companies sharing their equipment buildings. <br /> Diane Shaw and Frances Douglass, both Board of <br /> Adjustment members, spoke in favor of the <br /> amendment. <br /> Paul Cook, a resident on Buckhorn Road, indicated <br /> he would like an amendment that would require <br /> gates at the entrance road to the tower. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> proposed amendment including a provision for a <br /> gate at the access entrance to such facilities, <br /> and allowing the applicant the option of leasing <br /> space within an equipment storage area or <br /> building or providing separate facilities for <br /> this purpose. <br /> Burklin stated that he liked the emphasis on <br /> co-locating towers. Waddell agreed, noting that <br /> the Board of Adjustment also agreed with co- <br /> locating towers. Waddell continued that he also <br /> liked the idea of gates at the access entrance. <br /> MOTION: Burklin moved approval of the Planning Staff's <br /> ,recommendations. Seconded by Barrows. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> (Rosemond out of the room during this vote. ) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.