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

Browse Search

13 1 He said state law also establishes a very specific set of criteria for what constitutes a 2 modification. He said this is important in Orange County, as the County has three tiers of review 3 on telecommunication towers. He said anything over 75 feet is approved by staff in an 4 administrative action; anything over 75 feet and under 199 feet is approved through the class B 5 special use permit process by the board of adjustment; and anything 200 feet or over is reviewed 6 and acted upon by the Board of Commissioners as a class A special use permit. 7 Michael Harvey said this new session law establishes parameters to establish that certain 8 increases in height of an existing telecommunications facility shall not constitute a modification 9 that has to be administratively approved. He called attention to page 58 of the packet, where this 10 language has been incorporated within the provisions of the UDO. 11 He said the County attorney's office has requested the inclusion of additional language in 12 11-a, b, c and d. He said this will be included to flesh out exact parameters of a modification. 13 Michael Harvey said the key is to ensure that sufficient language is provided to focus on 14 the changing nature of the tower. He said this affects testimony and facts considered when a 15 tower is reviewed and acted on by the County. 16 He gave the example of a tower that is 190 feet tall. He said the tower height can be 17 increased by 10 percent, or not more than 20 feet, and it is considered a minor change that does 18 not go before the Board. He said this is an attempt to avoid having a tower that is 199 feet, 19 reviewed as a class b special use permit, wanting to add to 209 feet, requiring additional 20 compliance standards. He said staff would like to require the Board to review and approve this 21 type of action. 22 Michael Harvey said this ordinance amendment does not alter current review and approval 23 procedures. He said there will still be a class A and class B special use permit process, and a 24 consultant review of all co-locations. He said the review timeline is not being changed. 25 He said the consultants are limited in what they can charge to the County. He said meals 26 and travel cannot be charged, but the County contract never allowed this, so no amendment is 27 necessary here. 28 He said there was no public comment, and many changes from the session law have 29 already been incorporated. 30 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there were constraints to how many times a tower can be 31 modified. 32 Michael Harvey said if the modifications exceed existing permitting authority for the tower, 33 the permit must be modified. 34 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the limits. 35 Michael Harvey reviewed these again. 36 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this means that the tower could be increased in size 37 multiple times. 38 Michael Harvey said this is conceivable, but he noted the other parameters of obtaining 39 approval. He said mandatory setbacks still have to be complied with, and it is unlikely that you 40 can have a consistent increase in tower height while maintaining relevant factors to the permit. 41 He said the other parameter to be incorporated is that the Board of Adjustment or the 42 Board of Commissioner will be basing decisions on the testimony and evidence entered into the 43 record during a hearing. He said any alteration that changes the parameters of that evidence 44 would have to be reviewed and acted upon. 45 He reminded the Board that any tower 200 feet or higher must be illuminated, based on 46 FHA regulations. He said most people don't like to do this, as it is costly and draws attention to 47 the tower. 48 Chair Jacobs noted the motion on page 40. 49 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to: 50 51 1. Receive the proposed text amendment(s).