Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 5 —Excerpt of 48 <br /> Approved 1/8/2014 Approved Planning Board <br /> Minutes <br /> 1 MINUTES <br /> 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 DECEMBER 4,2013 <br /> 4 REGULAR MEETING <br /> 5 <br /> 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township <br /> 7 Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; <br /> 8 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; <br /> 9 <br /> 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill <br /> 11 Township; Stephanie O'Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; <br /> 12 Peter Hallenbeck(Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Vacant-Hillsborough Township Representative; <br /> 13 <br /> 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, <br /> 15 Special Projects Coordinator;Ashley Moncado,Special Projects Planner;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II <br /> 16 <br /> 17 OTHERS PRESENT:Jay Hitchens <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment — Telecommunications <br /> 20 Facilities: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments <br /> 21 to the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)to incorporate recent changes in State law with <br /> 22 respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the development or <br /> 23 modification of telecommunication facilities. This item was heard at the November 25, 2013 <br /> 24 quarterly public hearing. <br /> 25 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Michael Harvey: Reviewed proposal. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Paul Guthrie: The operative word is physical. Do you feel that will limit your ability to object to a modification? <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Michael Harvey: We had that discussion. The answer is no because when you read that section in totality there <br /> 32 are other requirements that the cell tower provider will have to adhere to. The County attorney wanted to put in <br /> 33 language indicating the physical dimensions (of the tower) are part of the key decision making process because <br /> 34 obviously the session laws, as imbedded here, allows for certain increases in height to certain standards (without <br /> 35 the need for County approval). <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Michael Harvey: Anything over 200 feet you have to have illuminated. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Tony Blake: Most of the telecommunication towers we are putting up have requirements for generators and the <br /> 40 new one that has come out recently is anti-aviary protection, bird nests being built up there. They are using sound <br /> 41 and other means of discouragement, also solar panels on the tops of these towers as ancillary power. Are all those <br /> 42 covered in other areas of the UDO? <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Michael Harvey: I would argue they are covered in the standard section for approval where you have to approve <br /> 45 any apparatus placed on the tower and prove said apparatus will not overburden the tower to cause structural <br /> 46 failure. So it is already covered. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the UDO Text Amendment regarding wireless facilities in their jurisdiction with the <br /> 49 proposed amendment from the County Attorney.Seconded by Buddy Hartley. <br /> 50 <br /> 51 VOTE:UNANIMOUS <br /> 1 <br />