Minutes - 20091123 QPH - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

placing sites in their planning jurisdictions. Craig Benedict said that the approval for sites 7, 8 and 9 is just to proceed with a discussion with the local governments. Frank Clifton said that the reason that sites 7, 8, and 9 are there is because those are gaps with Emergency Services coverage. Commissioner Gordon noted that sites 7, 8, and 9 were in the same general geographic area. Commissioner Nelson said that he understands that the County has no co-location towers. Craig Benedict said that Cedar Grove Fire Department has a tower and some public safety equipment has been located on this. At the Emergency Services location, the County put up its own tower. Commissioner Nelson said that Chapel Hill gets income from its towers and he would like to tap into that income source. He said that he does not think it would be bad form to proceed and communicate with a letter to Chapel Hill and Carrboro immediately. Earl McKee made reference to site 2, which is the ABC Store site on NC 49. He said that this is on the surplus property list and it should be removed from the surplus property list before a bid is put on it. Written Comments from Commissioner Jacobs: "I have for years advocated improved cell coverage in Orange County, and most especially the provision of broadband access, particularly in Economic Development Districts. Thanks to staff for this effort to expedite siting telecommunication towers. Still, as a matter of form, we should state at the outset that we are applying the same standards and review to locating towers on county property that we would apply on private property. This assurance is especially important because, unfortunately, the abstract does not include materials relevant to reviewing the regulations. Staff states the plan may be administratively approved `as long as the proposed tower complies with the various department standards, location requirements, testing, and plan submittal details as contained within Section 8.8.17a.' But no such section is provided for review. The lack of documentation is vexing; it's easy to recognize that newer members of the BOCC, not to mention the public, are not conversant with the details of the telcom plan. Prior to making a decision, consideration of this item should be augmented by a copy of the appropriate regulations, including the rationale the county adopted for a more modest level of review for towers standing less than 150 feet tall. While it may seem to go without saying, Orange County needs to make an affirmative commitment to minimize the visual impact of tower placement on our properties— particularly as they affect the aesthetic appeal of parks— and to prohibit their siting in environmentally sensitive areas or in such a manner as to disrupt bird flyways. These matters may be covered by the ordinance, but unless I'm missing something, neither a decision-maker nor a member of the public has any way to reach such a conclusion based on the materials presented tonight. Also, a few questions: What opportunity will neighbors have to comment on these pre- approved sites? Is this it? If so, what notice was provided for proximate property owners? What, if any, effort has been made to investigate distributed antenna systems rather than towers? Do our unrevealed standards include requirements to remove towers when and if they become abandoned or obsolete?" PUBLIC COMMENT: Ben Lloyd said that he has no problem with a County-owned site, but his question is if there is a more suitable site on private property would the private property owner be precluded from negotiating with the tower to locate on their property. S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc