|
55
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 55 doesn't currently meet all of the current public safety needs, as Kirby can attest. Next two slides
<br /> 56 are just maps that show where we stand today. These are the existing telecommunications tower
<br /> 57 sites by type. They're color-coded. It's hard to see the little dots, but you can see that they're kind
<br /> 58 of spread out and the density largely follows the urban corridors,the highways in the urban areas,
<br /> 59 and as you get out to the northern part of the county, they start to become almost nonexistent.
<br /> 60 This is another map that's'also available on our website. It's a telecommunications plan map.
<br /> 61 This is a bit misleading, but essentially what this map shows are sites where property owners
<br /> 62 have raised their hands, brought it to the commissioners and said I am willing to locate a site in
<br /> 63 this area, but you can see even with people raising their hands and the differences between these
<br /> 64 two, there's still a lot of white,a gap in large part to dumb it down, gaps in coverage. Summary of
<br /> 65 the proposed amendments, I'm going to go through these very quickly. At the end of this, I'll ask
<br /> 66 Al Benshoff and Lydia Lavelle, our consultants,to give sort of a summary of the changes, but the
<br /> 67 gist of it is that this amendment would repeal in whole the existing UDO Section 5.10 by the time
<br /> 68 you start putting a scalpel to it and trying to align it with federal and state laws,there's more
<br /> 69 revisions than not, so we decided let's just repeal the entire thing and replace it with a better
<br /> 70 product. There are also revisions to Section 5.2,the table of permitted uses, better definitions and
<br /> 71 an alignment of the permitted use, and then Section 10,the definitions. We're trying to continue
<br /> 72 the trend to allow for lower impact towers and streamline the approval process and completed the
<br /> 73 mandatory statutory definitions. We coordinated with the likes of Kirby,with EMS,with IT and
<br /> 74 AMS to integrate this effort, and this is part of a,what we see as a continuum as a cross-
<br /> 75 collaboration between our departments and thank you Kirby for participating in this effort.
<br /> 76 Continue to update long range plans. We will look at possibly aligning fees and other fee
<br /> 77 structures in accordance with federal and state laws. We will improve community and industry
<br /> 78 access to communicate telecommunications data and information. The amendment process
<br /> 79 we've gone through has been briefed several times through the DAC process. We were not
<br /> 80 required to have a community neighborhood information meeting,yet we did. Two folks attended,
<br /> 81 Liz Hill with American Towers among the folks that attended, another person named Joey Nelson
<br /> 82 with AT&T attended. They gave comments and were very insightful, gave follow-on comments
<br /> 83 and then we received industry comments from the CTIA in that letter that you saw. We feel like
<br /> 84 we've addressed all those questions and incorporated those into the product. It was briefed last
<br /> 85 month. Technical revisions and clarifications were made based on the meetings and the follow-up
<br /> 86 commentary from the industry and then today, I made those changes to those replacement items.
<br /> 87 The recommendation: the planning director recommends the board review and discuss the
<br /> 88 proposed UDO text amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation and make a
<br /> 89 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency,Attachment 3, and the proposed
<br /> 90 tax amendments. And with that,Al might have a few brief words to say.
<br /> 91
<br /> 92 Albert Benshoff: Good evening. My name's Albert Benshoff. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel
<br /> 93 Hill. This is Lydia Lavelle. She's also an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I have
<br /> 94 worked on telecommunications zoning questions since 1986. 1 also was a planner for 15 years
<br /> 95 before I went to law school to get into a line of work where I'd be more popular. I want to thank
<br /> 96 the County for giving us this interesting project to do and thank the staff,thanks Cy, Patrick, Jack
<br /> 97 and Kirby for their input and their help. I can give you a brief presentation about what we did and
<br /> 98 why we did it, but before I do that, I'd like to say I would prefer to answer questions so I talk about
<br /> 99 what you would like to hear about rather than what I think you need to hear about. So, are these
<br /> 100 any questions this early?
<br /> 101
<br /> 102 Lamar Proctor: Well,just as a general question,what did you seek to accomplish and what did you think were the
<br /> 103 benefits to be gained by an overhaul of this section of the UDO?
<br /> 104
<br /> 105 Albert Benshoff: Well, the staff,the county put out an RFP to do this work and we responded to it, and I've done a
<br /> 106 fair amount of this work around the state. The jurisdiction closest is Carrboro. A few years ago, 1
<br /> 107 worked on their zoning ordinances about cell towers, about wireless telecommunication facilities.
<br /> 108 1 think I can answer your question, Mr. Proctor,with some of my prepared remarks. Yes,the
<br />
|