Agenda - 04-01-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: 2 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; 3 2. Close the public hearing; and 4 3. Approve the text amendment package contained in Attachment 2. 5 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to 9 Telecommunication Facilities — Public Hearing Closure and Action 10 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public 11 hearing, and making a decision on a Planning Director initiated text amendment(s) to the 12 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) incorporating recent changes in State law related to the 13 review and permitting of telecommunication facilities. 14 Michael Harvey said this item was presented at the November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public 15 Hearing where staff indicated Session Law 2013-185, adopted on June 26, 2013, has modified 16 how local governments process new telecommunication tower applications, including: 17 • A prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a proposed 18 telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional wireless coverage or 19 capacity, as part of the application package. 20 While the County can still request this information we cannot require it nor can we find an 21 application is `deficient' when it is not submitted. 22 • Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to review 23 applications for co-locations. 24 • Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-location 25 applications. 26 • Establishing standards allowing for increases in overall tower height under certain conditions 27 as being `permitted by right'. 28 29 Michael Harvey said the state also decided to allow modifications to telecommunication 30 facilities mandating that local governing bodies accept that modification without additional 31 permit review. He referred to page 40 of the agenda packet, which includes a definition of a 32 substantial modification. He read this as follows: "The mounting of a proposed wireless facility 33 on a wireless support structure that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the 34 support structure." 35 He said there have been questions about what constitutes a substantial modification. 36 He said the answer is contained on pages 12-13 of the amendment packet. He said there are 37 situations where the height of an existing tower can be elevated, not more than 10 percent of 38 the existing height, and this is not a substantial modification. He said there are also additions of 39 apparatus to the body of the tower, as proposed in 11-c on page 13, that do not constitute a 40 substantial modification. 41 Michael Harvey reminded the Commissioners that the Board approved processes for the 42 modification special use permits. He said minor changes can be administratively reviewed and 43 approved by staff, as covered in section 2-7-14. He said there are there are 10 criteria that 44 establish the mechanism for staff to determine whether a proposed change constitutes a minor 45 change or a modification, which must be reviewed by the board that issued the permit. 46 Michael Harvey said a substantial modification is spelled out in section 2-7-14. He said 47 the chief component is that any time a proposed change to a telecommunications tower causes 48 changes to existing conditions or facts entered into the record in the issuance of the permit, the 49 County has to re-review the project as a special use permit.