Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
H) Fee Schedule Modification <br />1. New fees are set forth in a separate ordinance attachment included as a part of this <br />packet. <br />2. The Master Telecommunication Plan and the consultant review system was <br />discussed at the September 3, 2002 BOCC meeting. <br />4 <br />PROCESS: <br />First Action: The Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2002. The BOCC recommended that <br />the amendments be referred to the Planning Board at their September 4, 2002 monthly meeting <br />for a recommendation to the BOCC no sooner than September 17, 2002. <br />Main Issues at the Public Hearing: <br />1) fall zone requested to be increased to 110% of tower height <br />a. The proposed ordinance has been amended <br />2) light visibility from adjacent properties and upward glare prohibited <br />a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. <br />3) balloon test notification to adjoining properties certification required from applicant <br />a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. <br />4) sign posting of site for balloon test date, times to be required in new ordinance <br />a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. <br />5) Annual Telecommunication Projection Meeting (ATPM) <br />a. allows Class A & B applications to proceed to provided ATPM was considered for <br />the site <br />b. Class A SUP applications to be considered at May and November quarterly public <br />hearings, Class B SUP applications to be considered as necessary <br />6) perimeter buffers enhanced <br />a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. <br />7) industry concerns addressed to the extent recommended <br />a. dropped twice yearly meeting of Board of Adjustment from recommendation <br />b. recommend allowing subsequent major inspection dates to be calculated from <br />date of a co-location or prior to certificate of occupancy, whichever is greater. <br />c. clarified `existing structure' definition <br />d. added provision for `Unforeseen Events' for defined situations <br />e. recommend reducing the application fees and setting up an escrow <br />f. staff does not recommend opening up the ATPM to more than once per year <br />g. staff does not recommend processing all SUP's at Board of Adjustment level <br />Second Action: The Ordinance Review Committee heard the amendments on September 4, <br />2002. The Committee recommended that the entire Planning Board make a recommendation. <br />Third Action: The Planning Board heard the amendments on September 4, 2002. The main <br />issues discussed at the Planning Board meeting are as follows: <br />1) Recommended that `Unforeseen Events' be clarified to state that unanticipated <br />circumstances may allow review of towers not submitted at the ATPM. Also, clarified <br />that towers could be retrofitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. <br />2) Recommended revision of Section 6.18.2(d) (2) to add `6.18' to clarify the reference <br />to `this section'. <br />3) Recommended that utility provider language be inserted to allow co-locations on <br />utility poles within public right-of-way. <br />