Orange County NC Website
22 <br /> 880 <br /> 881 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 /> 882 in its entirety. <br /> 883 <br /> 884 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 /> 885 these were nit-picky comments. <br /> 886 <br /> 887 Patrick Mallett: That's why we're here. <br /> 888 <br /> 889 Charity Kirk: Okay. But the last one is 5.10.1.(A).(1),where all the bullets are. Encourage, minimize, create, <br /> 890 minimize, establish and the first one is protection of where it really could just be protect.And then <br /> 891 it would grammatically be more consistent for the bullet points. So, I would make amendment, a <br /> 892 nit-picky amendment,to 5.10.1.(A).(1),you remove protection of, and you change it to protect. <br /> 893 <br /> 894 Statler Gilfillen: I will second that motion. <br /> 895 <br /> 896 Chris Johnston: I think at this point we're still making sure that we don't have any additional comments. <br /> 897 <br /> 898 Lamar Proctor: Do we take a motion on amendments separately or do we move to approve the statement of <br /> 899 consistency with the amendments and go through them individual before we take the vote? <br /> 900 <br /> 901 Cy Stober: It's up to your discretion, but more commonly it's the second approach that you mentioned,to add <br /> 902 the amendment when the motion is made for the whole package. <br /> 903 <br /> 904 Chris Johnston: Okay. Not to be that guy. Do we need to check, because half the table has had comments. 1 <br /> 905 didn't know if we needed to verify if anyone else needed to weigh in. <br /> 906 <br /> 907 Lamar Proctor: I think we've resolved everything with the exception of that one. <br /> 908 <br /> 909 Chris Johnston: That's perfectly fine. I didn't know, like I said, if this side of the table needed to chime in. <br /> 910 <br /> 911 Venkat Yendapalli: One question. More like a procedurally question. Once we go through this amendment language, <br /> 912 how long does it take to get a cell tower there? I live in Cedar Grove,and it is very spotty. How <br /> 913 long does it take to see a cell tower go up there in that area? Areas that they can't reach, <br /> 914 emergency services, or if they're in this spot or they can't get cell tower. <br /> 915 <br /> 916 Patrick Mallett: I would say that the conservative, assuming it's an administrative approval for a new cell tower, <br /> 917 you're looking at about 60 days. It would go through Jackie Hicks,who was also heavily involved <br /> 918 with this package. She's our telecommunications consultant. She's the one that knows all the <br /> 919 technical co-location information. She has to review it, give a recommendation. We review it. It <br /> 920 goes through the DAC.About 60 days.A special use permit going to the Board of Adjustment for <br /> 921 approval, you're looking at anywhere from 4 to 6 months to get that processed. <br /> 922 <br /> 923 Venkat Yendapalli: Thank you. <br /> 924 <br /> 925 Lamar Proctor: Any other specific questions or amendments. I understand Charity's point. It's a grammatical <br /> 926 thing. It's not in line with the other numbers. <br /> 927 <br /> 928 Charity Kirk: Lady of the company, did she want to talk? <br /> 929 <br /> 930 Liz Hill: I'm really just here to answer any questions that she might have. <br /> 931 <br /> 932 Charity Kirk: Okay. <br /> 933 <br />