Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
62 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 432 <br /> 433 Cy Stober: That's because those are different documents an elevation is a profile of what the tower would be <br /> 434 like. <br /> 435 <br /> 436 Charity Kirk: I know what elevation is. <br /> 437 <br /> 438 Cy Stober: That's separate from the site plan. A site plan is a two-dimensional drawing. The utility <br /> 439 requirement is a layer that is an additional standard for what utilities may be done on the site plan. <br /> 440 The map is a locational map. It doesn't have to be as precise as the site plan. It doesn't even <br /> 441 have to be scale. The site plan comment in Item 4 is identifying additional requirements of that <br /> 442 site plan. It is redundant with language in E, but the others are not the same drawings as the site <br /> 443 plan itself of the property and its boundaries. So, I think the utility comment is an additional layer <br /> 444 of regulation beyond our site plan regulations. I'm comfortable with it. <br /> 445 <br /> 446 Charity Kirk: You're comfortable with it. Okay. <br /> 447 <br /> 448 Statler Gilfillen: I have one question on this. When those plans are submitted,they have to be done by a licensed <br /> 449 engineer, right,or an architect? Okay. As an architect, those are pretty standard presentations. <br /> 450 You can argue about nit-picking which way and what, but if they're not clear,the inspector at the <br /> 451 other end is going to send them back to the engineer and they're going to get it done properly. <br /> 452 That's tradition. <br /> 453 <br /> 454 Patrick Mallett: That's a good point and I would offer if we can keep it as is. We're comfortable with it, or strike it <br /> 455 in its entirety. <br /> 456 <br /> 457 Charity Kirk: I don't think you need to strike it. I'd just change the language to be more consistent. I told you <br /> 458 these were nit-picky comments. <br /> 459 <br /> 460 Patrick Mallett: That's why we're here. <br /> 461 <br /> 462 Charity Kirk: Okay. But the last one is 5.10.1.(A).(1),where all the bullets are. Encourage, minimize, create, <br /> 463 minimize, establish and the first one is protection of where it really could just be protect.And then <br /> 464 it would grammatically be more consistent for the bullet points. So, I would make amendment, a <br /> 465 nit-picky amendment,to 5.10.1.(A).(1), you remove protection of, and you change it to protect. <br /> 466 <br /> 467 Statler Gilfillen: I will second that motion. <br /> 468 <br /> 469 Chris Johnston: I think at this point we're still making sure that we don't have any additional comments. <br /> 470 <br /> 471 Lamar Proctor: Do we take a motion on amendments separately or do we move to approve the statement of <br /> 472 consistency with the amendments and go through them individual before we take the vote? <br /> 473 <br /> 474 Cy Stober: It's up to your discretion, but more commonly it's the second approach that you mentioned,to add <br /> 475 the amendment when the motion is made for the whole package. <br /> 476 <br /> 477 Chris Johnston: Okay. Not to be that guy. Do we need to check, because half the table has had comments. 1 <br /> 478 didn't know if we needed to verify if anyone else needed to weigh in. <br /> 479 <br /> 480 Lamar Proctor: I think we've resolved everything with the exception of that one. <br /> 481 <br /> 482 Chris Johnston: That's perfectly fine. I didn't know, like I said, if this side of the table needed to chime in. <br /> 483 <br /> 484 Venkat Yendapalli: One question. More like a procedurally question. Once we go through this amendment language, <br /> 485 how long does it take to get a cell tower there? I live in Cedar Grove, and it is very spotty. How <br />