|
Approved 6.4.25
<br /> 496 revisions than not, so we decided let's just repeal the entire thing and replace it with a better
<br /> 497 product. There are also revisions to Section 5.2,the table of permitted uses, better definitions and
<br /> 498 an alignment of the permitted use, and then Section 10,the definitions. We're trying to continue
<br /> 499 the trend to allow for lower impact towers and streamline the approval process and completed the
<br /> 500 mandatory statutory definitions. We coordinated with the likes of Kirby,with EMS,with IT and
<br /> 501 AMS to integrate this effort, and this is part of a,what we see as a continuum as a cross-
<br /> 502 collaboration between our departments and thank you Kirby for participating in this effort.
<br /> 503 Continue to update long range plans. We will look at possibly aligning fees and other fee
<br /> 504 structures in accordance with federal and state laws. We will improve community and industry
<br /> 505 access to communicate telecommunications data and information. The amendment process
<br /> 506 we've gone through has been briefed several times through the DAC process. We were not
<br /> 507 required to have a community neighborhood information meeting,yet we did. Two folks attended,
<br /> 508 Liz Hill with American Towers among the folks that attended, another person named Joey Nelson
<br /> 509 with AT&T attended. They gave comments and were very insightful, gave follow-on comments
<br /> 510 and then we received industry comments from the CTIA in that letter that you saw. We feel like
<br /> 511 we've addressed all those questions and incorporated those into the product. It was briefed last
<br /> 512 month. Technical revisions and clarifications were made based on the meetings and the follow-up
<br /> 513 commentary from the industry and then today, I made those changes to those replacement items.
<br /> 514 The recommendation:the planning director recommends the board review and discuss the
<br /> 515 proposed LIDO text amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation and make a
<br /> 516 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency, Attachment 3, and the proposed
<br /> 517 tax amendments. And with that,Al might have a few brief words to say.
<br /> 518
<br /> 519 Albert Benshoff: Good evening. My name's Albert Benshoff. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel
<br /> 520 Hill. This is Lydia Lavelle. She's also an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I have
<br /> 521 worked on telecommunications zoning questions since 1986. 1 also was a planner for 15 years
<br /> 522 before I went to law school to get into a line of work where I'd be more popular. I want to thank
<br /> 523 the County for giving us this interesting project to do and thank the staff, thanks Cy, Patrick, Jack
<br /> 524 and Kirby for their input and their help. I can give you a brief presentation about what we did and
<br /> 525 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 /> 526 what you would like to hear about rather than what I think you need to hear about. So, are these
<br /> 527 any questions this early?
<br /> 528
<br /> 529 Lamar Proctor: Well,just as a general question,what did you seek to accomplish and what did you think were the
<br /> 530 benefits to be gained by an overhaul of this section of the UDO?
<br /> 531
<br /> 532 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 /> 533 fair amount of this work around the state. The jurisdiction closest is Carrboro. A few years ago, 1
<br /> 534 worked on their zoning ordinances about cell towers, about wireless telecommunication facilities.
<br /> 535 1 think I can answer your question, Mr. Proctor,with some of my prepared remarks. Yes,the
<br /> 536 ordinance was last amended by Orange County in 2011 but in total, it reads like a state-of-the-art
<br /> 537 1988 ordinance, and since 1988,the technology has changed,the laws have changed, and the
<br /> 538 US Code and the North Carolina General Statutes require that local governments do certain
<br /> 539 things about cell towers in their zoning ordinances, so some of these changes are mandatory.
<br /> 540 The Federal Communications Commission also has jurisdiction, and they issue orders and rules,
<br /> 541 and they're mandatory. So, some of this is trying to rationalize all the things that the county has to
<br /> 542 follow because they don't necessarily agree with each other. So,we did that. Another goal was to
<br /> 543 take feedback from the staff about what worked in the ordinance that you have now, and there
<br /> 544 were things that seemed like a good idea in the 20th century that either weren't used or didn't
<br /> 545 work out the way they were intended. For example,there's a provision in your current ordinance
<br /> 546 that the planning staff and the industry all get together and have a meeting every year to talk
<br /> 547 about where towers are needed,where they'll be built in Orange County,what's going to happen
<br /> 548 in the next year. That's not mandatory. That's kind of died on the vine. That was deleted. That's
<br /> 549 an example of things that came out. So,what's changed is the number and kind of structures and
<br /> 550 towers that staff can improve are increased, and that's because the federal government and the
<br />
|