P ORD-2002-030 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments

Browse Search

Tom King - August262002.doc Pig 6 101 existence now, or only towers built under this ordinance. She does not know of any other place that requires a 36 -month structural analysis. She said that if a carrier has co- located on a tower, or if the tower has had a structural modification in the 36 months, then a structural analysis would have been required anyway. She made reference to visual inspections and asked if this would be included in the 36 -month structural analysis. Since there would be a full review every 36 months, then why have other inspections during the year unless something critical happens. She then spoke about the financial viability of the tower companies. She said that, as a tower owner, they sign long -term contracts with carriers. Even if they go out of business, there is still a contract in place and whomever they sell the asset to, they still have to abide by that long -term contract. The tower will still be an operating entity for the carriers on the tower and the name on the fence would change. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 17, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Presentation: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Amendments Discussion of County Response to amendments in Article 15 of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance applicable in the Northern Transition Area. Craig Benedict gave a brief introduction to this item. Planning Systems Coordinator Gene Bell stated that this item is an analysis by Planning staff of the amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. As per the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, the County reviews the amendments to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances. In this case, the amendments with the village mixed use provisions of the Carrboro land use ordinance were submitted by Winmore Land Management, LLC. The agenda materials include the materials from Carrboro's May 281" meeting (pp. 35 -56). The staff looked for consistency with the Joint Planning Agreement and the small area plan for Carrboro's northern study area. The analysis is on pages 29 -34. He said that there are three amendments that he is concerned with. Item 1 — this amendment would have allowed the Board of Aldermen to approve projects whose development standards did not specifically meet. all provisions spelled out in the Carrboro land use ordinance. The staffs finding was that this was inconsistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Item 6 — the amendment was that brick borders no longer be required on sidewalks. The staffs finding was that this amendment was consistent, but the Board of Aldermen did not adopt it. He was told that the board wanted to keep this requirement as a "signature detail that has been used in downtown and in the villages." Item 10 — the request was to increase impervious coverage in developments from 50 -65 %. The staffs finding was that an increase in impervious surface would be inconsistent. The Board of Aldermen opted to keep the coverage for development at 50%. Gene Bell said that the Board of Alderman acted on this on May 28'", but this does not preclude the Board of County Commissioners from making additional comments. The administration recommendation is that the Board receives this information and discusses the desirability of a formal response to the Town of Carrboro. Chair Jacobs asked that Craig Benedict expound on how Carrboro is going to proceed. Craig Benedict said that on Friday afternoon, the Town of Carrboro, through the County Manager's office sent us information that for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting on August 2701, they would be receiving petitions for voluntary annexation from a variety of property owners that underlie the W inmore proposal and the adjacent UNC property. The aspects of a voluntary annexation have a few different steps. The aspects of the Town of Carrboro receiving and acting upon the annexation would put the property under the municipal limits of the Town of Carrboro. The zoning for that area would stay the same until Carrboro changed the zoning. Based on last Friday's information, Carrboro