Agenda - 02-25-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 1-28-02 BOCC Work Session Minutes 4 0023 1 2. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNA DISCUSSION 2 This item was presented to discuss possible areas of revision to the tower ordinance to provide 3 alternate review processes and a telecommunication plan to promote co-location and master grid 4 planning as well as information on the differentiation between Class A and Class B review processes. 5 Chair Jacobs said that it is interesting that Class A towers (200'+) must come to the Board of 6 County Commissioners for approval and none have been submitted since 1996. 7 Craig Benedict clarified that Class A towers are 200 feet or higher. Class B towers are 199 feet 8 and lower and six have been approved by the Board of Adjustment within the last two years. He made 9 reference to the map showing the tower sites in Orange County and mentioned that to date there are 49 10 towers. In some cases the company is the telecommunication provider like AT&T. Also there is a new 11 company called Telecommunication Providers and these are companies that go out and find locations 12 and then promote colocation and process applications. He made reference to the consultant's 13 contract, which was in response to a County Commissioners' goal. He said that Metrosite is still doing 14 business in North Carolina and interested in doing work for Orange County. He expanded on what 15 Metrosite could do saying that they have experience in dealing with other governmental entities. 16 17 Craig Benedict suggested that maybe the County Commissioners may want to put a moratorium 18 on accepting any further applications for towers. 19 20 Commissioner Halkiotis asked about fees and Craig Benedict said that there is an inspection fee of 21 $50 at the present time. He is recommending that this be increased to $4,000. 22 23 Commissioner Halkiotis asked if we require that an abandoned tower be taken down and Geoffrey 24 Gledhill said that the tower companies are bonded and they must take the tower down if it is abandoned. 25 26 Geoffrey Gledhill said that 199' is telling but when the County Commissioners revised the 27 ordinance a couple of years ago, the objective was to build lower towers so the citizens have responded 28 to that. 29 30 Chair Jacobs said that there were some articles the County Commissioners received last year 31 about the towers interfering with birds. 32 33 Geoffrey Gledhill suggested that the County Commissioners focus on how the County 34 Commissioners want to proceed from this time forward. 35 36 John Link asked if this moratorium item could be added to the quarterly public hearing in February 37 with the ordinance to come back in August and Craig Benedict said that it could. 38 39 Craig Benedict asked if changes to the telecommunications ordinance should be made 40 based on staff knowledge and input from the County Commissioners or would the County 41 Commissioners consider hiring a consultant that would assist with developing these changes and 42 managing towers on public sites. Also, should we bring in telecommunication providers to help with 43 these changes and do we invoke a moratorium while we are going through this process of changing the 44 regulations. 45 46 Commissioner Brown said that she wants to make sure that we protect the public's interest in all 47 this— not only the scenic view we all enjoy but at ground level also. She supports a moratorium and also 48 placing these on public properties so that the County would receive the money. 49 50 Commissioner Carey supports the moratorium so that we have time to learn about these towers 51 and their effects on people and also he agrees with placing these towers on County lands where people 52 do not live near by. We need to try to generate a revenue source. He is leery of consultants who 53 extract a part of the revenue for evermore. He feels we should get some advice from a consultant who 54 will help us develop a better ordinance. He feels a discussion with the stakeholders would be beneficial.