BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 7 of 68 there is a Wireless Telecommunications Act for both counties and cities. I would like to pass it out to you so you have 1 that because it does add clarification that is not in the local UDO. 2 3 Larry Wright: Do I have a motion to enter this into the record? 4 5 MOTION made by Jeff Schmitt to enter (applicant Exhibit #1) into the record. Seconded by David Blankfard. 6 VOTE: Unanimous 7 8 Tom Johnson: I would like to talk about some of the standards and some of the things that are mentioned within this 9 act. If you look, once you get your copy, I will start with 153A -349.51A and it basically outlines what is within the 10 purview of the local board in making a decision on an application for a tower. It says a county may plan for and 11 regulate the sizing and modification of wireless support structures and wireless facilities in accordance with land 12 development regulations and in conformity with this part and accept as expressly stated within the state statutes, 13 nothing in this part shall eliminate the county for regulating applications to construct, modify or maintain wireless 14 support structures. The definition of a wireless support structure is contained in this statute to the tower. It specifically 15 says it is a tower whether it is a monopole or lattice or to construct, maintain, modify or co-locate wireless facilities on a 16 wireless support structure that is on existing structure. Based on consideration, land use, public saf ety and zoning 17 consideration; those include aesthetics, landscaping, structural design, setbacks, fall zone or state and local building 18 code requirements consisting with provisions of federal law and this referred to here. Again, it is the typical zoning 19 decisions that is yours to consider as a board, aesthetics, setback, and those kinds of things you are used to 20 considering. The part of this that helps clarify this more is when you get into 153A -349.51A is a little more detail. It 21 says, “Information regarding the applicant’s business decisions such as its design service, customer demand service, 22 the quality of its service to or from a particular area, the specific need for the wireless support structure. Those are 23 considerations that are business decisions of the applicant. The best comparison I can come up with is the franchise of 24 McDonald’s decided to build a McDonald’s on a corner in Hillsborough, the decision about whether or not there is a 25 need for another McDonald’s in Hillsborough in not part of your decision but the setbacks, aesthetics, things like that 26 which deal with McDonald’s is within the zoning purview of the county. That is the first clarification in the state statute 27 brings to the picture. The other clarification is you get into Subsection C of 153A -349.52 is case point somewhat that 28 there can be no existing or previously approved wireless support structure that can accommodate the need. The 29 second part of that is necessary to provide the applicants design service. In other words, that co-location cannot 30 function to provide the support the applicants design service. Y ou can require the county, the applicants to evaluate the 31 reasonable feasibility of co-locating new antennas and equipment on existing wireless support structure within the 32 applicants search ring. When I say search ring, it is in your packet and it is the area in which the carrier, let’s say T-33 Mobile has decided we need a tower in this area in order to be able to match up with other existing towers to improve 34 our service. That is what the service ring is. It is roughly a one half mile radius search ring for this location in order to 35 be able to match up with the existing towers so what the carrier does is have that search ring they give to a real estate 36 consultant who goes out and finds properties within that search ring that may or may not meet the requir ements of T-37 Mobile in this area and comes up with options for T -Mobile to look at and that all depends upon not only location but 38 also a willing land owner. Is there someone out there who is willing to lease a site for a tower? But they also look at 39 the existing towers. The key point in the state statue is co-location on an existing wireless support structure is not 40 reasonably feasible if co-location is technically or commercially impractical or the owner of the tower will not allow you 41 to go on the tower for some reason. That is not the case here. Our focus here tonight will be on the technical or 42 commercial impractical and I do have a radio frequency engineer from T-Mobile, Lee Kerlin, who will go into that and 43 explain why there is an existing American Towers site in Durham County on Kerley Road, not far from this one. We 44 fully admit that and you saw that in your packet and the information has been provided but it’s at an elevation that will 45 not meet the objectives that T-Mobile has for this location. Again, the detail will come from the radio frequency 46 engineer. Those are the main points so what you take away here is we have a search ring, we have to look at options 47 within that search ring, that is what state law says and you see whether or not ther e are any opportunities on other 48 wireless support structures. Not utility poles, not other structures, wireless support structures under the same statute 49