Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-18-2001 - 9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2001
>
Agenda - 09-18-2001
>
Agenda - 09-18-2001 - 9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2012 12:40:38 PM
Creation date
10/29/2012 12:40:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/18/2001
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 09-18-2001
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2001
ORD-2001-028 Stream Buffer Zoning Ordinance Amendments
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3 15 <br /> 1 the floodplain and wants to have any type of agricultural production or forestry, they are exempted <br /> p2b y the majority of state laws. <br /> 3 With no further public comment, Chair Allison closed the public hearing. <br /> 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> 5 refer the proposed zoning text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be <br /> 6 returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 3, 2000. <br /> 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 8 <br /> 9 2. ORANGE COUNTY TELECQMMUNiCATiONS TOWER APPROVAL <br /> 10 REQUiREMENTS AND PROCE S <br /> 11 Craig Benedict made a correction to the agenda abstract that this item was a public <br /> 12 hearing. The abstract indicated that it was not a public hearing. <br /> 13 Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that it had been four years since the <br /> 14 inception of the telecommunication rules in Orange County. A lot of improvements have been <br /> 15 made since that time. He explained in detail the following issues and suggestions. A section of <br /> 16 definitions could be added that describes the different types of antennse.arrays that can be on the <br /> 17 towers. He explained the possibility of putting towers on existing structures such as hotels, etc. <br /> is One of the suggestions is for the County to put together a master plan where the County has more <br /> i4 involvement in the placement of telecommunications towers. Another suggestion is allowing <br /> 20 telecommunication facilities to be in electrical transmission lines. Another suggestion is the <br /> 21 development of utility corridors across the County. There are minimum standards that can be <br /> 22 augmented within the County's code to promote more co-location and multi-use. At this time,the <br /> 23 standards for telecommunications towers is that anything 200 feet and above Is a Class A Special <br /> 24 Use and it goes to both the Planning Board and County Commissioners, If it is 189 feet, it is a <br /> 25 Class B and just goes to the'Board of Adjustment. The staff provided the County Commissioners <br /> 26 with a report over the last year, and all of the towers were Class B with a height of 195 feet and <br /> 27 above. He said that the County Commissioners could change the height at which the tower would <br /> 28 requires Class A Special Use Permit. He said that there were other counties and towns that were <br /> 29 putting together master telecommunication plans. The reaction to these plans has been favorable <br /> 30 so far. He said that the Commissioners did not have to make any decisions tonight. <br /> 31 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 7, Telecommunications Facilities, and <br /> 32 asked Craig Benedict why the facilities would be permitted as an accessory use in parks and <br /> 33 recreation greater than 1.25 acres and in community facilities. Also, at the top of page 9, Section <br /> 34 C, it says"it shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any residential district or residential portion of <br /> 35 a PUD unless a property is designated as part of the special utility overlay district. She asked If <br /> 36 that could sometimes negate the placement in parks, recreation areas, and community facilities. <br /> 37 Craig Benedict said that, in regards to the parks and community facilities,they were zoning <br /> 38 designations that may or may not be on the zoning map at this time. He said that there was <br /> 39 enough latitude in the regulations so that there were no conflicting provisions. <br /> 40 Commissioner Gordon said that community facility needed to be defined. Craig <br /> 41 Benedict said that in his previous experience,towers were located in parks where there were I <br /> 42 lights. He said that towers could be incorporated in parks and could sometimes reduce the cost of <br /> 43 sports lighting poles. <br /> 44 Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a differential fee structure,which would <br /> 45 encourage people to do the things that the County prefers, such as co-location. Also, regarding <br /> 46 the issue of the height of the poles, he would like for the County Commissioners to review all of the <br /> 47 applications. He said that if the requests for towers were going to the Board of Adjustment,then <br /> 48 the County Attorney should be present at the meetings. Craig Benedict will do some research with <br /> 49 the present ordinance and look at the rationale for the height number,which causes the application <br /> 50 to go to the Board of Adjustment instead of to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs <br /> 51 made reference to the$4,000 application fee and asked if the County's legal representation was <br /> 52 included in that Craig Benedict will take a look at the fee structure, County staff time, attorney <br /> 53 time, etc. <br /> 54 Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to co-location and said <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.