Browse
Search
BOA minutes 121216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
BOA minutes 121216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:14:19 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 9:58:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 121216
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
Approved 3113117 <br />1 it is to build a tower. And it's also much cheaper to co- locate than it is to build a tower. So it's the <br />2 preference to co- locate. Unfortunately, within this search area there were not existing towers and <br />3 there were not existing other structures as sufficient in height to meet that network objective that 1 <br />4 discussed earlier. Now, in addition to there not being other structures to co- locate on Orange <br />5 County Planning Department brought to our attention an additional candidate. There was another <br />6 candidate that the Planning Department brought to our attention. They call it the Mellot Candidate. <br />7 My understanding is that the property owner for that site is their last name is Mellot. And so they <br />8 asked Verizion Wireless, "Can you put your facility here and meet your network objective ?" <br />9 Verizon Wireless was happy to do that, they analyzed it, and the results of that analysis is that this <br />10 candidate could not meet the network objective. And what this is, it shows... David Haughney, the <br />11 engineer for Verizon Wireless, is here to explain this a little bit better. But essentially the distance <br />12 between the Mellot candidate and the proposed Clearwater Lake site, there is a topography and <br />13 foliage obstruction that makes it so that Verizon would not be able to meet it's network objective at <br />14 this proposed site. So given that there were no opportunities to co- locate and we could not go on <br />15 this Mellot candidate a need for a new tower at the subject property was determined. In terms of <br />16 the proposed tower it would be a 195 foot monopole with a 4 -foot lightning rod. This is the tower <br />17 design that was shown in the application. As you can see here, it will be a monopole structure <br />18 which means it will not be lattice. I don't know if you're familiar with the 3 -leg lattice structure, it will <br />19 not have big lines that go out from the tower. Also, it will not be lit and it will be... The type of pole <br />20 that they use for these monopoles is the same type of pole they use for power lines, it's just taller. <br />21 But that's what you can expect. It's galvanized steel. It will be designed to accommodate 3 future <br />22 co- locators as required by the ordinance. So that means this is going to reduce the need for <br />23 towers in this area, and when this is implemented it won't only help Verizon Wireless' customers, <br />24 it will not only help the Orange County residents in this area who have Verizon, it will also help the <br />25 residents who have AT &T, Tmobile, to the extent that they come and co- locate on this tower. And <br />26 again, it will be a requirement that any carriers that want to go in this area, they will have to prove <br />27 an inability to co- locate on this tower. So they will have to first try to co- locate on this tower. There <br />28 are 3 findings of fact that this Board must consider in determining to grant this SUP and we have <br />29 addressed those findings of fact in pages 59 -64 of the narrative, which is exhibit 1. 1 just wanted to <br />30 briefly go over a few of those points with you here tonight. The first finding of fact that the Board <br />31 must consider is whether the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and welfare. <br />32 So there's two ways that this use will promote good public health, safety, and welfare. First, it's a <br />33 public necessity and second, it will follow and be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, <br />34 and Local regulations. As to the first part of it being a public necessity, the reason this is a public <br />35 necessity is currently almost half of American households are wireless only households. And that <br />36 number is only increasing. That means that for about half of Americans, their only means of <br />37 communicating by phone is on their cell phone. So they need that wireless service on a day to day <br />38 basis. That becomes even more crucial in an emergency situation. If your only way of <br />39 communication is on a cell phone you need that wireless coverage in the event of an emergency. <br />40 And then that goes both ways as well. The wireless coverage not only helps for people making a <br />41 911 call but it helps the emergency responders be able to respond to those emergency phone <br />42 calls. Wireless service also aids in public responders in other ways. For example, police officers <br />43 have computers in their cars. They're using those computers and they're using wireless service to <br />44 access things like criminal records, driving records, or warrants for arrest. So that's crucial for <br />45 them to have in their vehicles. And they rely on wireless for that. The second finding of fact that <br />46 the Board must consider is whether the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous <br />47 property. Unless the use is a public necessity then there's no need to enhance or maintain the <br />48 property value. Now I've just discussed with you how this will be a public necessity. However, in <br />49 addition to that Towercom has retained David Smith. He's a North Carolina certified real estate <br />50 appraiser MAI and SRA, he has prepared a report that was submitted as Exhibit 32 of the <br />OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 5 of 156 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.