Minutes - 20020225 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

trying to use consistent terminology. There are few differences between the old code and the new code. Probably 98°l0 of it is the same but just written differently. This will require public outreach to explain to homeowners, contractors, etc., that there will be a new code and that it roughly says the same thing, but that there are differences in certain areas. One of the major changes has to do with wind load on structures and waterproofing. There are same issues that could be added to the code specifically for Orange County that would upgrade the standards. There are two companion codes that are still in effect nationwide -National Electric Code and National Fire Code. These codes will remain the same. The staff recommends that after this public hearing the building code be brought back to the Board for approval. Commissioner Brawn asked if the Planning Department plans to do any education far the contractors and Craig Benedict said that they will develop a public outreach program. Commissioner Gordon asked haw Craig Benedict would educate the County Commissioners. She asked that he write the changes out. Craig Benedict said that the staff would not be recommending anything unique for Orange County this year. When it is time for the code to change, it will be very specific. Chair Jacobs said that it will be important to have stakeholder meetings so that people are not alarmed that we are going to change standards that will adversely affect the way in which they live. No action was needed on this item. The County Commissioners will bring it back on a future agenda for consideration of approval. 4. Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers Craig Benedict explained that this moratorium would be for six (6) months for telecammunicatiantnwers that are in process, unapproved, or applied for. After this is transmitted to the Planning Board, it will be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for a recommendation on March 6t". He distributed the draft resolution that would be an the March 6t" agenda. He spoke about the reasons for the moratorium. There have been some questions in the past year about the changes to the telecommunication tower ordinance. There has also been some discussion about the existing regulations and their conformance to the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and questions about any new standards and technology that could be put into the ordinance that would make it more functional and aesthetic. There have been very few towers applied for in the class A category, which is 200 feet and above and would require Planning Board and Board of County Commissioner approval. One of the issues that causes concern is notification to the general public of balloon tests, etc. Another issue has to do with co-location opportunities. The staff will work with the telecommunication industry during the moratorium to identify their needs. The staff will also consult with other stakeholders such as neighborhoods that have towers. Staff is suggesting that the moratorium be invoked for six months to give the planning staff sufficient time to update the regulations based on new technology. Another issue is equity so that the public as well as the appointed bodies all have input instead of it being a purely technical matter. The moratorium would run from March 6t" to September 6t" Chair Jacobs suggested having a primer for the citizens an how to present evidence. He encouraged the staff to take notes on the kinds of questions that come up from citizens and the kinds of issues that arise that are of an evidentiary nature so that citizens can understand the process. Public Comment Robert Ekstrand spoke on behalf of the telecommunications companies such as Verizan, Cingular, AT&T, and Sprint; and also the companies who develop the infrastructure for those facilities such as Crown Castle, SBA, Spector Site, and American Tower. He said that the industry is not at all opposed to the moratorium because the industry and the technology are changing. He asked that the industry as stakeholders be involved in this process. He asked that the County Commissioners consider exempting one site from the moratorium because it is about three days from filing. He asked the County Commissioners to also consider exempting applications from the moratorium for permits to co-locate on existing structures. He made reference to the hazard mitigation plans and the component of