Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
causes changes to existing conditions or facts entered into the record in the issuance of the <br /> permit, the County has to re-review the project as a special use permit. <br /> He said the biggest concern is that the County has a graduated permitting process for <br /> telecommunication facilities. The Board of adjustment reviews towers between 76 and 199 <br /> feet, and the County Commissioners review tower requests of 200 feet or higher, which have <br /> additional setback and lighting requirements. He said the attempt is to guard against someone <br /> coming in with a 199 foot tall existing tower and then elevating it to 209 feet without the County <br /> Commissioners having to review it. He said this is what the language on page 13 does. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification about the thresholds. <br /> Michael Harvey said if you have a 180 feet tower and you add 15 feet to it, this will fall <br /> within the exemption and will not be considered a modification. He said the <br /> telecommunications provider will still have to show compliance with all facets of the County <br /> code; however, the County cannot require a special use permit. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the same would be true if someone has a 220 foot <br /> tall tower and wants to go up another 10 percent. <br /> Michael Harvey said this is correct. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin asked if John Roberts feels this is rational and defensible. <br /> John Roberts said that is the planning department's position, and since there is no case <br /> law on this it may be defensible. <br /> Michael Harvey said the County bears the burden of proving that a substantial <br /> modification needs more review. He said it is not an all or nothing issue, and all <br /> determinations are made by staff and are appealable. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin questioned the fact that this is a second public hearing, but the <br /> public cannot speak. <br /> John Roberts said the ordinance states that the second public hearing is for the <br /> planning board recommendation and written comments only. He said the first public hearing is <br /> for oral comments only. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said it is a bit of a misnomer to call this a public hearing. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to: <br /> 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; <br /> 2. Close the public hearing; and <br /> 3. Approve the text amendment package contained in Attachment 2. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> Chair Jacobs noted that at agenda review the Board asked staff to let the <br /> Commissioners know about upcoming telecommunication towers even if the towers are not <br /> coming up for review. He said the Board still gets emails and calls from the public about this, <br /> and it is good to be informed to respond. <br /> 6. Consent Agenda <br /> • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda <br /> Items 6-h, 6-i, and 6-j were pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. <br /> • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda <br />