Minutes 11-25-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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