Minutes 01-23-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• Clarify notification requirements with respect to who is notified of a Board decision. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Approve the text amendment package contained in Attachment 2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Telecommunication Facilities — Public Hearing Closure and Action The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a Planning Director initiated text amendment(s) to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) incorporating recent changes in State law related to the review and permitting of telecommunication facilities. Michael Harvey said this item was presented at the November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated Session Law 2013-185, adopted on June 26, 2013, has modified how local governments process new telecommunication tower applications, including: • A 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. While the County can still request this information we cannot require it nor can we find an application is `deficient' when it is not submitted. • 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. • Establishing standards allowing for increases in overall tower height under certain conditions as being `permitted by right'. Michael Harvey said the state also decided to allow modifications to telecommunication facilities mandating that local governing bodies accept that modification without additional permit review. He referred to page 40 of the agenda packet, which includes a definition of a substantial modification. He read this as follows: "The mounting of a proposed wireless facility on a wireless support structure that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the support structure." He said there have been questions about what constitutes a substantial modification. He said the answer is contained on pages 12-13 of the amendment packet. He said there are situations where the height of an existing tower can be elevated, not more than 10 percent of the existing height, and this is not a substantial modification. He said there are also additions of apparatus to the body of the tower, as proposed in 11-c on page 13, that do not constitute a substantial modification. Michael Harvey reminded the Commissioners that the Board approved processes for the modification special use permits. He said minor changes can be administratively reviewed and approved by staff, as covered in section 2-7-14. He said there are there are 10 criteria that establish the mechanism for staff to determine whether a proposed change constitutes a minor change or a modification, which must be reviewed by the board that issued the permit. Michael Harvey said a substantial modification is spelled out in section 2-7-14. He said the chief component is that any time a proposed change to a telecommunications tower