Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 1/8/2014 <br /> <br />5 <br />Craig Benedict: We like to be as specific as possible. 213 <br /> 214 <br />Herman Staats: If this is put in place to provide more leverage in the case where it is needed for resolution of 215 <br />complaints, then this will serve its purpose. 216 <br /> 217 <br />Tony Blake: I didn’t want to outlaw people who were not bothering anyone. I think the County wants to encourage 218 <br />development. 219 <br /> 220 <br />Ashley Moncado: Any more comments? 221 <br /> 222 <br />Craig Benedict: We will have to see how these revisions you suggested are incorporated into the text and Ashley 223 <br />will bring it back next month for a formal vote. 224 <br /> 225 <br />Ashley Moncado: After the Planning Board votes on this item in January 2014, it will go to the BOCC in February 226 <br />2014. 227 <br /> 228 <br />Tony Blake: Did you make any attempt to address Alice’s concern about the size of the building in the minor? 229 <br /> 230 <br />Ashley Moncado: That was commented on for Board discussion tonight. 231 <br /> 232 <br /> 233 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Telecommunications 234 Facilities: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 235 <br />to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent changes in State law with 236 <br />respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the development or 237 <br />modification of telecommunication facilities. This item was heard at the November 25, 2013 238 <br />quarterly public hearing. 239 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 240 <br /> 241 <br />Michael Harvey: Reviewed proposal. 242 <br /> 243 <br />Paul Guthrie: The operative word is physical. Do you feel that will limit your ability to object to a modification? 244 <br /> 245 <br />Michael Harvey: We had that discussion. The answer is no because when you read that section in totality there 246 <br />are other requirements that the cell tower provider will have to adhere to. The County attorney wanted to put in 247 <br />language indicating the physical dimensions (of the tower) are part of the key decision making process because 248 <br />obviously the session laws, as imbedded here, allows for certain increases in height to certain standards (without 249 <br />the need for County approval). 250 <br /> 251 <br />Michael Harvey: Anything over 200 feet you have to have illuminated. 252 <br /> 253 <br />Tony Blake: Most of the telecommunication towers we are putting up have requirements for generators and the 254 <br />new one that has come out recently is anti-aviary protection, bird nests being built up there. They are using sound 255 <br />and other means of discouragement, also solar panels on the tops of these towers as ancillary power. Are all those 256 <br />covered in other areas of the UDO? 257 <br /> 258 <br />Michael Harvey: I would argue they are covered in the standard section for approval where you have to approve 259 <br />any apparatus placed on the tower and prove said apparatus will not overburden the tower to cause structural 260 <br />failure. So it is already covered. 261 <br /> 262 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the UDO Text Amendment regarding wireless facilities in their jurisdiction with the 263 <br />proposed amendment from the County Attorney. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 264 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS 265