Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
45 <br /> Attachment 4—Excerpt of Draft <br /> BOCC November 25,2013 <br /> Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes <br /> 1 DRAFT <br /> 2 MINUTES <br /> 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> 4 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING <br /> 5 November 25, 2013 <br /> 6 7:00 P.M. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board <br /> 9 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS <br /> 10 Office, Hillsborough, N.C. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark <br /> 13 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich <br /> 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee <br /> 15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts <br /> 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the <br /> 17 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) <br /> 18 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board <br /> 19 members Maxecine Mitchell, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea <br /> 20 Rohrbacher, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley <br /> 21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, James Lea, Stephanie O'Rouke <br /> 22 <br /> 23 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- <br /> 24 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent <br /> 25 changes in State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the <br /> 26 development or modification of telecommunication facilities. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Michael Harvey said this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. He said attachment 1 is <br /> 29 the comprehensive plan and UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is the actual copy of Session <br /> 30 law 2013-185. <br /> 31 He reviewed the following Session law criteria from page 39 of the abstract: <br /> 32 <br /> 33 • Prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a proposed <br /> 34 telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional wireless coverage or <br /> 35 capacity, as part of the application package. <br /> 36 • Local governments cannot require `proprietary, confidential, or other business information' <br /> 37 to justify the need for a new telecommunication facility. <br /> 38 • Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to review <br /> 39 applications for co-locations. <br /> 40 • Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-location applications. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Michael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT&T has <br /> 43 been willing to provide data indicating existing telecommunications facilities. <br /> 44 He said the co-locations fee is now limited to $1,000, and the previous charge was $2500. <br /> 45 He said that change has already been incorporated. <br /> 46 He said state law also establishes a very specific set of criteria for what constitutes a <br /> 47 modification. He said this is important in Orange County, as the County has three tiers of review <br /> 48 on telecommunication towers. He said anything over 75 feet is approved by staff in an <br /> 49 administrative action; anything over 75 feet and under 199 feet is approved through the class B <br /> 50 special use permit process by the board of adjustment; and anything 200 feet or over is reviewed <br /> 51 and acted upon by the Board of Commissioners as a class A special use permit. <br />