Orange County NC Website
<br />John Link said that the next phase, which is the programming, would include how the field <br />will be used and would address all the concerns expressed by the neighbors in that area. The <br />concerns include hours of operation, noise, no lights, etc. This item was to secure the lease and to <br />assure the Nutter's that we are going to go ahead with the plan to use their property. <br />In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown, County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said <br />that there is no requirement for a public hearing in this situation, but there is nothing that prevents the <br />County from having one. <br />Commissioner Gordon suggested a third action to the recommendation as follows: "Direct <br />the staff to prepare proposed operational and programming procedures and bring back to the Board of <br />County Commissioners for approval with an implementation schedule that allows for appropriate input <br />from the neighbors and the public in general." <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to <br />• Approve a lease with the Nutter Family Limited Partnership III for 5.897 acres at the Maple <br />View Farm upon which to develop a soccer field. Terms and conditions of the lease shall be <br />substantially those presented in the attached lease, however, subject to Attorney and Staff <br />review; <br />• Authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board; and <br />• Direct the staff to prepare proposed operational and programming procedures and bring <br />back to the Board of County Commissioners for approval with an implementation schedule <br />that allows for appropriate input from the neighbors and the public in general. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA <br />a. Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers <br />The Board considered closing the public hearing and making a decision on a proposed six- <br />month moratorium on telecommunications towers for applications, which are in process and for new <br />applications. <br />Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there was a 7-1 vote by the Planning Board in <br />favor of the moratorium with one change to allow the co-location of telecommunication facilities on <br />existing towers during the six-month period. There was a public hearing on February 25'h on the <br />proposed moratorium. The reason for the moratorium is that there have been a lot of changes in <br />technology and the height and placement of the poles. The telecommunication industry expressed their <br />desire to work with the Planning staff on the revisions to the regulations for telecommunication towers. <br />They are putting together a committee of County departments and the telecommunications industry to <br />discuss the new regulations. <br />Based on the deliberations of the Planning Board and the recommendations of the staff, the <br />recommendation is to adopt the moratorium ordinance with the deletion of the statement in the <br />resolution of not permitting co-location on existing towers. <br />Commissioner Brown made reference to attachment two and asked for clarification and <br />Craig Benedict said that any application previously received, which has not been acted on by any <br />authority, would be included in the moratorium. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked how many applications came in between the public hearing <br />and today and Craig Benedict said that one was received. That application would be invalid because it <br />did not have afive-day pre-conference hearing. There was one in process at the time of the public <br />hearing but it was denied by the Board of Adjustment. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that if applications had been received that were valid, she would <br />support accepting those applications and letting them go through. She said that applications should be <br />accepted until action is taken (an official vote). <br />Public Comment <br />Robert Ekstrand, Attorney for Verizon and Cingular, said that, based on the discussions with <br />the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board, his sense was that the change in the resolution could <br />be broadened to include existing structures. The second issue he raised last week was that he would <br />