S ORD-2002-037 Telecommunication Tower Ordinance Amendments

Browse Search

b D~Z fJ ~~p p Z.~ ~~~ 1~2 - 1 p-~.a o Z- m. Telecommunication Tower Ordinance Amendments ~ m The Board considered amendments to the County's telecommunications tower ordinance. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the salmon colored paper with her questions and the answers from Craig Benedict. Three of the questions led to three proposed changes. The first suggested change is on page 24 regarding the signs for the balloon test. She suggested that the minimum size of the sign be no less than four square feet giving the proposed dates, times, and locations of the balloon test. The other change was number five on the salmon sheet (page 40) and the definition of commercially impracticable, which means that a telecommunication tower has to be functional from two standpoints, one being the coverage area and the other being the number of users related to the tower. This can be read into the record, if the Board agrees with it. Also, she made reference to page 29a, the table of permitted uses. She wanted to make sure the Board realized that towers greater than 150 feet (up to 200 feet) would go to the Board of Adjustment if there were four co- locators on the tower. This is a major incentive. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to p17a where telecommunication towers 150 feet in height or shorter indicates no particular co-location, but they still get a class B special use permit. He asked where the incentive was. Craig Benedict said that the ordinance still does promote co-location justification criteria in the normal process. In p17c, it is a procedural incentive. Commissioner Jacobs asked what would happen if the tower was 201 feet. Craig Benedict said that it would be a class A special use permit. Commissioner Jacobs asked if that was clear from this. Geoff Gledhill pointed out p17c, which says, "greater than 150 feet." Craig Benedict said that they could add some language under p17c to say, "and towers 200 feet and greater, regardless of the number of carriers." Commissioner Gordon would like for the County Commissioners to consider everything that is 150 feet and more and see how it goes. She said that the extra 50 feet means a lot in terms of the impact on the community. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the telecommunication ordinance as revised by the Planning Board with the amendments as made above by Commissioner Gordon, and the change that if a tower is 150 feet in height or shorter, it is a class B special use permit, and if it is greater than 150 feet in height, it is a class A special use permit. Commissioner Jacobs asked what the process incentive was for someone to have four carriers. Commissioner Gordon said that it would take out the process incentive and it would allow the County Commissioners to decide on towers more than 150 feet. VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1(Commissioner Carey) 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA a. Schools Adequate Facilities Memorandum of Understandinq The Board considered approving a proposed School Adequate Public Facilities memorandum of understanding (MOU) and considered confirming the future intention to adopt a model ordinance (SAPFO). Craig Benedict pointed out the revised abstract (lavender). There has been an extensive amount of input from every jurisdiction and every perspective. Orange County is in a different position from the majority of the other participants because we have development permit authority in the Orange County School district and in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School district. When Orange County passes the MOU and the ordinance, it will be clear that the development process will have certain specific aspects. Staff is asking that the County Commissioners approve the MOU for the two school districts with the addendums noted in the abstract. One addendum to the MOU was a clause from the Town of Carrboro that asked that when the projection numbers come out of the Planners/School Representatives Technical Advisory Committee, that they are distributed as soon as possible for comment and input by the local governments and parties to the local agreement. The Town of Carrboro also asks that they remain involved in the program as long as the County Commissioners continue to adequately fund the CtP. In the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School district at this time, there are no capacity problems that would cause an instant moratorium. So the level of