Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-*61 • 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. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment —To review government - ini ed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent change State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposin e devel00me r modification of telecommunication facilities. Michael Hary aid this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. H aid attachment 1 is the comprehensive plan a UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is th ctual copy of Session law 2013 -185. He reviewed the following S ion law criteria from p 39 of the abstract: • Prohibition on requiring information related he ecific need for a proposed telecommunication facility, including the addi additional wireless coverage or capacity, as part of the application pack • Local governments cannot require' prietary, confidentia , r other business information' to justify the need for a new tel mmunication facility. • Limits the fee local govern nts can collect for a third party consult to review applications for co -loc ons. • Mandatory revie melines /deadlines for local governments to act on co -loca applications. Uieffael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT as bee i ling 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.