Agenda 06-03-2025; 5-c - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments – Telecommunication Facilities Standards

Browse Search

58 DRAFT 216 Kirby is in regular communication for emergency services purposes,our information technologies 217 directors and regular communication as part of the Lumos project, as well as above-ground 218 facilities that are being installed to support that. So the County, much more broadly than our 219 department and the UDO, is in dialogue with the providers on a very regular basis and having 220 conversations about emergency services and reservation of facilities for public need and 221 particularly for the sheriffs office and emergency services to be able to respond to calls 222 throughout the County and there are some struggles currently, so as Pat said,we are likely going 223 to be seeing a few new towers in the next 10 years go up to respond to that need. But this is 224 larger than a planning matter at this point. It's a public service and emergency matter, and so we 225 don't need an annual meeting because we're in regular conversation with the providers. 226 227 Beth Bronson: Okay. But there was no consideration for something that was, like, 5 or 10 years and I would 228 agree with you that I feel like this is something that would be more appropriately added to 229 something like a comprehensive plan or long-range goals. 230 231 Cy Stober: I am very pleased with the language that Al and Lydia had provided with us for enforcement of 232 retired and abandoned facilities, and I think we have a clear path of action both through the 233 enforcement and remedies but also through civil litigation if we have to go that approach.We have 234 a clear path to assessment,which is a much faster remedy than trying to endlessly take folks to 235 court and I appreciate that. 236 237 Beth Bronson: Thanks for everybody's input. 238 239 Chris Johnston: Charity. 240 241 Charity Kirk: I have some nit-picky stuff, but I'll follow up on that question with the replacement of towers, like 242 removal. I only saw deadlines shall be 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. I didn't catch 243 everything so, excuse me if it's in here, but I didn't catch it, but the bigger towers, how do those 244 get removed? 245 246 Patrick Mallett: All right. The deconditioning part is, there's a built-in part of that which is,there are only a handful 247 of tower providers around nationally, and definitely in our region. Three or four. Typically, if those 248 tower providers have a facility on a property, they don't own the dirt. There are a few where they 249 actually own the dirt. The vast majority of them,they have a lease. And so, my experience has 250 been the decommissioning is kind of a built-in process from a liability perspective. They don't 251 want someone to get hurt or the property owner, they no longer have a lease. They want to take 252 that tower down pretty quickly. You'll see the scant ones that have one antenna, or the lease isn't 253 up and they're keeping their options open, but that's a built-in mechanism. 254 255 Charity Kirk: So you don't have anything in here about removal of those towers. 256 257 Albert Benshoff: It's Section 5.10.8.Which refers to all wireless support structures. 258 259 Charity Kirk: It's 30 days and then it's 180 days, so it's generally 30 days and then it's 180 days for small micro 260 wireless facilities. 261 262 Albert Benshoff: No, it's 180 days for everything. Because that's the standard law in North Carolina about non- 263 conformity,a use is deemed non-confirming and may be abated if it's abandoned for 180 days. 264 265 Charity Kirk: So, 5.10.8.(C)says 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. But where is it 180 days for all 266 facilities? 267 268 Albert Benshoff: Well, it's probably because the general statutes had that in there and I'm not sure that shouldn't be 269 changed to just say the deadline is 180 days, period. That would be fair.