Browse
Search
ORD-2006-086 - Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (PEMC) Planned Development (PD-OI) and Special Use Permit, Class A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2006
>
ORD-2006-086 - Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (PEMC) Planned Development (PD-OI) and Special Use Permit, Class A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2013 11:33:39 AM
Creation date
9/14/2010 10:18:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/3/2006
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
8a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20061003
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
so that they can be aware of it and look at it. My recollection is that this was the middle of the <br />day; as Commissioner Halkiotis said, he thought it was something else, a car dealership. How <br />is the public supposed to know any different? We need to look at our rules and regulations for <br />those and figure out a better way so people are alert to what's going on. I predict that when this <br />tower is built that people will say, "Wow, that's really tall, and why didn't I know about this," and <br />all that. I'm not saying that Piedmont didn't comply, I am just saying that we need to revisit our <br />regulations to make sure that people are aware of what's happening. I remember when we <br />were talking about the Board of Adjustment having to deal with these issues, we were talking at <br />one time about providing a consultant or somebody else who could look into these issues <br />before going to the public. And I seem to think that that would be true of the Commissioners <br />too. We need to assist the public a little bit more in trying to understand what's happening, and <br />somebody knowledgeable that they can go to that will inform them of these technical aspects. <br />Commissioner Carey: I thought we would increase the pace K we could hire a <br />consultant to represent and ask questions. <br />Craig Benedict: We have a representative of the County here tonight, the Center for <br />Municipal Solutions, Mr. Rusty Monroe, is part of that process that the Board suggested a few <br />years ago. The fees from the Piedmont tower were partially given to pay for the consultant and <br />one of the criteria we have is that this is one of the only engineering solutions to locating the <br />tower. We have used the expertise of the Center for Municipal Solutions and their memo is in <br />the file here, on page 142-144 that says that it meets the standards of our land development <br />code. So we do have that type of expertise. We are further in the Telecommunications Master <br />Plan effort and we may use the same consultant with other monies that have been budgeted <br />this year to create our telecommunication network for other public safety purposes. I will pursue <br />that with the Interim County Manager. <br />Commissioner Carey: Will the consultant be available to our Planning Board as they <br />deliberate on this. <br />Craig Benedict: Yes. <br />Commissioner Gordon: Is the consultant going to be available to the Board? He <br />should be sworn in and we should be able to ask questions. <br />Chair Jacobs: I agree with Commissioner Gordon. I think that the consultant should <br />have been introduced at the very beginning, and we do not have any problem with Piedmont <br />Electric, but if we're doing the process, I think we need to know that our expert is here and that <br />he's available for questions. He or she may have comments about the application and can be <br />here as a resource and be identified as a resource to the Planning Board and to the Board of <br />Commissioners, not to discover it in the discussion. And also, I agree with Commissioner <br />Gordon that the fact that there are no citizens here may mean that nobody has any problems, or <br />it may mean that our notification policies are inadequate. And my guess is that it is probably a <br />combination of both, and that one small period of a balloon that was notified to people within <br />500 feet, especially for a tower of this height, may not be adequate notice to the public. <br />Renee Price Saunders: I had a question with regards to the applicant proposing a <br />tower for public safety. Does the Planning Board or does the County Commissioners have the <br />responsibility of deciding what is a public need, or is that the responsibility of the applicant. Is <br />that something that should be assumed? <br />Geof Gledhill: It is the burden of the applicant to prove that it is a public necessity if <br />that's their intention, and if they do not prove that, and that finding can't be made, then it's the <br />burden of the applicant to prove the maintenance of property values in the absence of a public <br />necessity, <br />Renee Price: Is it the County Commissioners who determine whether or not they have <br />met the definition of a public need? Because it's going to be referred to the Planning Board. <br />Geof Gledhill: The County Commissioners in a Class A Special Use Permits will make <br />all of the findings. The Planning Board will make recommendations as to the findings. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.