Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 1 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be 2 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 18, 2014 BOCC 3 regular meeting. 4 Adjourn the public hearing until February 18, 2014 in order to receive and accept the 5 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. 6 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 Chair Jacobs asked if there is a list of the people who have home occupation permits. 10 He asked if these people can be notified that an ordinance is being considered. He said the 11 public hearing is adjourned, but perhaps these residents could attend the planning board 12 meeting. He said it might be smart to anticipate the comments that could come after changes 13 are made. 14 Michael Harvey said any additional comments would need to be in writing, since the 15 public hearing is closed. 16 Chair Jacobs suggested sending post cards to notify residents of what is happening and 17 directing them to a web address for submission of written comments. He said he recognizes 18 that there may be thousands of these people. 19 Ashley Moncado said staff will have to look at what resources are in place to be able to 20 do this. 21 Commissioner Gordon said she thinks this letter is a good idea. 22 23 2,2. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- 25 initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent 26 changes in State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the 27 development or modification of telecommunication facilities. 28 29 Michael Harvey said this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. He said attachment 1 is 30 the comprehensive plan and UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is the actual copy of Session 31 law 2013-185. 32 He reviewed the following Session law criteria from page 39 of the abstract: 33 34 • Prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a proposed 35 telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional wireless coverage or 36 capacity, as part of the application package. 37 • Local governments cannot require `proprietary, confidential, or other business information' 38 to justify the need for a new telecommunication facility. 39 • Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to review 40 applications for co-locations. 41 • Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-location applications. 42 43 Michael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT&T has 44 been willing to provide data indicating existing telecommunications facilities. 45 He said the co-locations fee is now limited to $1,000, and the previous charge was $2500. 46 He said that change has already been incorporated.