Agenda - 12-02-2002-9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4) Added language to Section 6.18.4 to require that towers be minimally visually intrusive. 5) Added provision to require lightening rods to be included in the determination of maximum height. 6) Recommended amending Section 6.18.4(f)(2)(a) to remove provision for 36-month inspections if a fall zone is provided. 7) Requires trained staff member or consultant to perform annual visual inspections. 8) Recommended amending Section 6.18.4(f)(5)(e) to remove provision that a North Carolina Registered Professional Engineer certifies that the tower meets current standards by replacing current with original/initial status if the tower is less than six years old. 9) Master Telecommunications Plan not re uired but o tp Tonal at BOCC discretion. 10) Recommended adding language setting criteria and clarifying the exceptions to the %2 mile spacing limitation between towers. 11) Clarifies that balloon test cannot be used as a criteria to deny a SUP but only can be used to assist in the reduction of visual intrusiveness. 12) Added provisions to minimize light diffusion from site. 13) Amended ordinance to define `Fall Zone'. 14) Recommended reducing the application fees to $2,500 for Class A SUP and $1,500 for Class B SUP and to require an escrow account from which consultant's review fees are paid, with residual amounts returned to the tower owners. Initial amounts of the escrow to be $7,500 for Class A SUP and $7,000 for Class B SUP. 15) Added language that exclusion of co-locators from towers is not permitted and that the consultant will advise the County regarding exorbitant market rate leases. 16) Adds section to ordinance to require the establishment of an escrow account. The Planning Board voted 5-4 to approve the entire ordinance, with the amendments. The four members in opposition to the entire ordinance expressed concern about the development of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP), which does not go into effect with this Ordinance amendment. The MTP is being investigated and formulated by amulti-departmental task force that includes IT, EMS, Purchasing, Budget, ERCD, Planning and stakeholders (such as Agricultural District landowners, and volunteer fire departments) that may be part of the MTP system. The MTP section of this ordinance will not be used until a Public Hearing is held, a recommendation provided by the Planning Board and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. Any actions associated with the MTP will be subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance and do not affect the validity or enforceability of these telecommunications ordinance amendments. Fourth Action: Board of County Commissioners to make a decision within a reasonable time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public fiscal impact related to this decision. RECOMMENDATION: Administration recommends Approval of the telecommunication ordinance as revised by the Planning Board with the exception #8 above. See page 19 Subsection e. in the Administration Ordinance for the recommended language. Administration recommends Approval of the amendment to the Orange County Schedule of fees (page 67).