Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
application to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the County <br /> Commissioners no later than June 3rd. The public hearing will be left open until that time. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: <br /> a. Telecommunications Towers: Amendments to promote consistency with <br /> December 1 , 2007 revisions to NC General Statutes concerning Wireless <br /> Telecommunications Facilities. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the County has now amended its ordinances to be consistent <br /> with the State, and certain processes that promote co-location have been streamlined. Also, the <br /> fees that are collected allow the County to have experts on behalf of the County to research the <br /> issues for public safety purposes. The balloon requirements have been amended for better <br /> visibility. Also, there are more detailed requirements for approval. This is a major change to the <br /> Telecommunications ordinance. These amendments will continue to be able to have a Master <br /> Telecommunications Plan to promote the limited amount of towers and more co-location. This <br /> is to be consistent with State law. The ordinance was reformatted, but the good ideas from the <br /> previous ordinance were not lost. He thanked the Attorney's Office for helping with this <br /> amendment. <br /> Chair Jacobs asked, after all is said and done, if this would wind up about the same <br /> place that it was or significantly under where it was. He cannot imagine that the legislation will <br /> let the County actually have more control. <br /> Mr. Speaker said that the short answer is you did not lose any regulatory authority, you <br /> just have to do several things differently. <br /> Jay Bryan said that the general sense is that towers can be placed anywhere in the <br /> County if they fit a set of criteria, and the public really has no ability to prevent individual towers <br /> from being located if they meet the various criteria in the ordinance. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the criteria are there to protect against the proliferation of <br /> towers. For example, the need for the tower has to be proven and that there are not alternate <br /> locations that could also serve the need. The federal government has certain interests to allow <br /> the information highway to proceed. It is not an easy denial in those cases. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> NONE. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to <br /> forward the matter to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a <br /> recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC no later than May 20, 2008. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> b. Planned Development: Amendments to address inconsistencies between existing <br /> ordinance requirements and NC General Statutes, specifically the requirement that <br /> imposed conditions be mutually agreed upon by the County and petitioner. <br /> Zoning Administrator Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that he has been <br /> working on this with the Attorney's Office. As the Attorney's Office and staff began earnest work <br /> on developing the conditional use process as well as beginning to finalize work on the <br /> Agricultural Services Enterprise project, it was discovered that there were several provisions in <br /> the existing ordinance that were not consistent with some recent changes of the general statute <br /> regular standards, specifically focusing on how conditions are proposed in certain projects. At <br />