Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
_. <br />SEP-:04- -2002 02:16PM FROM- PENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291075 T -379 P.003/008 F-403 <br />75 <br />COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING <br />ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING <br />COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS <br />September 4, 2002 <br />1. APPROVAL PROCESS. Page 1. As written, the Ordinance <br />contemplates all applications - seeking approval of <br />communications towers less than One Hundred Fifty. ( 150') feet <br />In height be heard by the Board of Adjustments, and all <br />communications towers greater than One Hundred Fifty (150') <br />feet In height be heard by the :County Commissioners. There is <br />no logical basis for this bifurcated approval process. The Board <br />of Adjustments will be just as well suited to hear applications <br />for the taller communications towers.. It will likewise be a more <br />experienced board to hear such applications since it has so in <br />the past until this time. The Board of Adjustments should be <br />treated as a. quasi - judicial board, which makes for a more formal <br />and judicial setting in the hearing of the special use application. <br />The Board of Adjustments will act upon evidence taken and <br />apply that evidence to the standards promulgated by the County <br />Commissioners. The applications to be heard are technical <br />applications, to be decided upon by objective standards. It Is <br />unnecessary for the County Commissioners, policy makers, to <br />be burdened with this extra responsibility, and for a technical <br />application to be potentially treated as a political Issue. <br />2.. LIMITATIONS ON HEARING DATES. Section 8.4.1.a. Page 1 <br />and 2:. Limiting hearing dates to twice per year Is not warranted <br />for either board. Likewise, it is not fair that every proposed <br />communications tower be presented in January of each year. <br />Someone will be human and forget about this requirement. An <br />annual meeting for carriers to discuss plans for the year, to the <br />extent they have been defined, is a good idea. But is it is not <br />fair to limit applications to those communications towers which <br />have been identified in January of each year. None of us is that <br />wise and foreseeing In all cases. The addition of the <br />"Unforeseen Circumstances" definition is good, but make it <br />more open ended and not so finite. Give staff some discretion <br />to determine if the application is justified in light of the <br />circumstances. There is no way that we can draft an ordinance <br />now that covers every possible scenario. <br />