OCPB agenda 110613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 10, 2013 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 8 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James 9 Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 10 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 14 Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 15 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 18 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 21 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO regarding Telecommunication Facilities. 22 This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-185. 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24 25 Michael Harvey: Reviewed the abstract. The State of North Carolina, in passing this Session Law, has put additional 26 limitations on local governing bodies, municipalities and counties with respect to how they are processing applications for 27 telecommunications facilities. Specifically, they limited the amount of time devoted to a co-locating application to 45 days, 28 limited the total amount of outside consultant fees we can charge. This is an amendment to bring us compliance with State 29 law. 30 31 Paul Guthrie: Local government cannot require that doesn’t mean that you can’t ask for it. You just can’t require it, correct? 32 33 Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement, we also can’t utilize it if they say no as a reason to deny or recommend denial. 34 We can’t use it a basis for any other reason to say they didn’t comply or they don’t comply with the law. 35 36 Michael Harvey: We are going to be presenting this at the November quarterly public hearing. 37 38 Pete Hallenbeck: First off, raising a tower above 199 feet means you suddenly have to add lighting to it. It is a big 39 undertaking for a tower company. 40 41 Paul Guthrie: Over 200 feet requires FAA consideration. 42 43 Michael Harvey: Yes, and we have standards if you are proposing a 200 foot tall tower it is part of the submittal that the FAA 44 has given initial clearance. 45 46 Pete Hallenbeck: So, between the FAA and the ordinances, there are a lot of good reasons for the companies to put in towers 47 that are less than 200 feet tall. The second thing is that raising a tower is not trivial. You can’t just nail a 2 x 4 and make it 48 higher. 49 50 51 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPERATION 52 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO related to Board of Adjustment operation. 53 This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-126. 54 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 55 9