HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-2011- 7bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. -7 - b
SUBJECT: Review and Adoption of the Master Telecommunication Plan (MTP) Map
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Master Telecommunication
Plan Map
2. Map of Enrolled Private and Quasi-
Public Properties
3. Resolution Outlining Conditions of
Review for County Properties
4. Legal Advertisement -February 28,
2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
5. February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public
Hearing Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245-2577
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 2592
PURPOSE: To adopt the Master Telecommunication Plan Map (hereafter 'the Plan') and a
resolution establishing a policy with respect. to the development of telecommunication wireless
support structures on County property.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
where the BOCC was reminded that there are portions of the County that are either not served,
or are underserved, by telecommunication services.
The Plan denotes properties that are potentially viable locations for telecommunication wireless
support structures and would serve as a marketing tool for the County. Available properties include
those where existing property owners have expressed formal, written interest to the County in
allowing for the development of a tower, specifically:
1. The Occoneechee Mountain fire tower (E-2),
2. The Cedar Grove Fire Department (P-1),
3. The Cedar Grove County Park (P-2),
4. The Caldwell Fire Department (P-3),
5. The future County Northeast Park (P-4),
6. The Walnut Grove County Solid Waste facility (P-5),
7. The Eno Fire Department (P-6),
8. The County Soccer Fields (P-8),
9. An OWASA site (P-11),
10. The White Cross Fire Department (P-13), and
2
11. The Mellott property (P-14).
Please refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Plan. As stated during the public hearing, there
is no action required by the Planning Board on this item. The adoption of this Plan does not
pre-approve tower applications nor grant any development authority to those individually listed
properties.
During the public hearing, the following comments were made:
• Questions arose over the imposition of conditions associated with County properties.
Board members stated that the County ought to go through the same notification process
and adhere to certain submittal requirements as a private firm proposing a
telecommunication wireless support structure.
STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 for a proposed resolution establishing
various conditions associated with the location of telecommunication wireless support
structures on County-owned properties.
• BOCC members recommended that existing regulations governing the erection of
telecommunication wireless support structures be reviewed by staff and the Planning
Board as part of the second phase of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) review.
STAFF COMMENT: Existing regulations will be reviewed as part of the next phase of
UDO development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than the published legal advertisement, which was paid for with
fiscal year 2010/2011 budget funds, there is no financial impact at this time other than staff
time. Eventually, ground lease revenues may be received from towers located on County
properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Accept any additional public comments on the subject,
2. Close the public hearing, and
3. Approve the Plan, as provided at Attachment 1, and the Resolution provided at
Attachment 3 outlining the County's position on the process required for the review of
projects on County-owned property.
Attachment 1 3
Telecommunication Plan Tower Sites
.~ ._ .
~~~~.
~._ ~ ~,
~ ~. •~.
' ~ ~' 1 - Piedmont Electric Tower `~~ .~
~~ ;,,:~
<' ,,. ~~.~, (P-2) Cedar
(P-1) Cedar ' ~ as ~ ~~_ - ~, _ Grove Park , '- ~ ,
Grove Fire t C -~ ~ ~ (P~) Caldwell
Department ~\,%' ~ , '_ ,~YYV _ ?, 15 Fire Department
f ~~
(P-4)
"~~~.~ Future Northeast
-r~' y Park
n ~f,•
. ~
.~
~, ~ _ ~.
'~ \ ,~ °` `
w
`.
~~~ t
;~ , ~~.
~ -~ -
Grove SW Site / ~~
~, ~
i
~,
_ ~ ~~
~ ~.„ '"
1 r '~ ~ Y d
'` s;T r ~.- ~ ~ _ *~ ~ " ~ ~ ~''~ (P-t3) Eno Fire and
.. ~ ,. ,N
7Q fE-2) ~ ~ ` -. _ Emergency Services
-` Occoneechee Tower
,r
~ (E-3)
,~~. ~
~. ,
EMS Tower
~., ~ '.,~
(P-8j County -~ ~-~„ (E-4) ~~`
Sour Fields ,~
, ,-
r.-~-. Piedmont"Electric
5.
I ~ a _ ' Tower ~ `~ ,
,f r ,
u° ~
r. "'f
L ~
OWASA r ;.. ~ ,~..
_.. .-
'~ f . ~- -.. 4 I ~~
Property ~,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ` ~ :>,
"~ ~ . ~ ~
V
3 7 _ (, •c
P _ ,~,~ ' z
~.( ~ -_ ~ i
r 3 -~ ~~ ' ,„ ~ '~a ~ ~ ~ ~~~' 501
icy ~ ~~~~; %~e,
~1 Y~G~y , S~ ac> 86 - ti
.
.,
,, ''
v T, f ` ~ ,~. j ~. ~ _ ~ ~ r
~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ .~ : ~'
~` ~ x , ,~
ti ~.
~;
~1
~~ }~ ti r~, j ~ ~~ 501 l f
~_
Cross Fire *, , ~ ~ ~ .. 15 .-~ 1
Department ~"'~{
(P-14) Melbt PropeAy
E-1 79° 7' 14.75" W 36° 14' 28.12" N
E-2 79° 7' 19.1 T' W 36° 3' 42.86" N
E-3 79° 4' 22.80" W 36° 3' 36.50" N
E-4 79° 4' 42.51" W 36° 2' 43.20" N
P-1 79° 12' 29.5T' W 36° 10' 58.2T' N
P-2 79° 8' 25.44" W 36° 10' 45.3T' N
P-3 79° 0' 53.63" W 36° 11' 14.82" N
P-4 79° 3' 4.8T' W 36° 8' 53.54" N
P-5 79° T 6.63" W 36° 8' 36.48" N
P-6 79° 0' 14.49" W 36° 6' 53.57" N
P-8 79° 11' 48.91" W 36° 4' 22.01" N
P-11 79° 13' 40.60" W 35° 57' 45.49" N
P-13 79° 13' 1.72" W 35° 53' 43.60" N
P-14 79° i' 20.9T' W 35° 52' 21.4T' N
Enrolled Private Properties
Exisitng Tower Locations
Potential Tower Locations
~~ 2 mile Buffer
°~~~ N t inch = 3.2 miles
° " 0 1 2 3
Miles
in. ~...,,•.
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
QS Map Prepared by Brian Carson January 25, 2011
Attachment 2
Enrolled Private Properties
~.
-~.. v= ~ _.. _.._..~
P-2 Cedar T r ~ P-3 Caldwell
( ) Piedmont Electric owe ( )
(P-1) Cedar ~ qg ~ Grove Park i, ~' , rte: •, Fire Department
Grove Fire ~~. ~ ,':
Department ~` •, ', ~ ~~ ~ ~', 15
~~
1 ~ ~ ~
w _
,~
_ - rr
_'_~-~_ 1 -_ _w-.
._
,.
~~ ~ ~ ~ -"-'' Mince Road
- ~~-~ ~.
ti
,~`
V
(P-5) Walnut gy
f~
~'~ Y
lr~
~~~ f~`-' ~
ry'e'=
(P-~
~ p,
Grove Site ~~'~
f `f ~ ,
_~
-
~
. {
' ~ ~ -` ~
Buckhorn .. 86 1 ,~
,~ t..
f
Road ~
~.~.,f
~ ~ ,
" -
r
' ~ -t i
~
~ ~` ~ ~ ~
_
-
.°
,• 4
~ ~"~
.
~ .
ce..,
„
i ~,,y (E-2) f: _
_
(P-6) Eno Fire and
`~~ ~
~ Emergency Services
70.1 ~ ~ ' Occoneechee Tower
,
-,
,t! rf
,`
,'
'
'
, EMS Tower
-
~~ E
~ ~ ~
~~~ 1
.
~ s
Y
„
r
_
tP-s> county ~
v
~~~'~ ~~ ~ ~~ ri , < ,. ~-
- c ~
,
~ ~~ . ~~
Soccer Fields , , ~ ~ - (P-9) Blackwood Farm
'~ ~ J
~- rT TOWer
Piedmont Electric ~ 'w ~~~ { u
Tower ?~ ~ i '
~; (p-90)
OWASA -
• -``
ro rt
Pe Y
_
~ ~~
'~~_ _ _ . ~
-
~ _ . ....
_-•-
_ County
_ '
Park Site '
~• ~ •
,.
} S
~--
;~ . ~ _ _
~._ E • • - ~
~ ;k
f j r .
,•~Ly ;~ _ t ~~~ a~ , , 501
..
_._ ~ , .
> , ' t ' , ,,µ 1 , (P-12) American ,
~. ~ - ~ a ( Stone Quarry
} ,
r
~ ~, w ., -
~,~ _-~, '1 L~-~<' ~ ~~~ 501 ~.~. '`,
- _: ;
~~ a ~
_ s (P-13) White ' ~` ', `
-i- ~ Cross Fire 15 ,~. ~~
Department
(P-14) Mellot Property
Enrolled Private Properties
Exisitng Tower Locations
Potential Tower Locations
2 mile Buffer
4
E-1 79° 7' 14.75" W 36° 14 28.12" N
E-2 79° 7' 19.17" W 36° 3' 42.86" N
E-3 79° 4' 22.80" W 36° 3' 36.50" N
E-4 79° 4' 42.51" W 36° 2' 43.20" N
P-1 79° 12' 29.57" W 36° 10' 58.27" N
P-2 79° 8' 25.44" W 36° 10' 45.37" N
P-3 79° 0' 53.63" W 36° 11' 14.82" N
P-4 79° 3' 4.87" W 36° 8' 53.54" N
P-5 79° 7' 6.63" W 36° 8' 36.48" N
P-6 79° 0' 14.49" W 36° 6' 53.57" N
P-7 79° 13' 32.98" W 36° 4' 54.21" N
P-8 79° 11' 48.91" W 36° 4' 22.01" N
P-9 79° 4' 54.48" W 36° 1' 4.18" N
P-10 79° 4' 53.82" W 35° 58' 41.90" N
P-11 79° 13' 40.60" W 35° 57' 45.49" N
P-12 79° 9' 1.82" W 35° 55' 56.00" N
P-13 79° 13' 1.72" W 35° 53' 43.60" N
P-14 79° 1' 20.97" W 35° 52' 21.47" N
•' °-•, N
°••• 1 inch = 3.2 miles
" 0 1 2 3
Miles
Orange County Planting and Inspectlons Department
GLS Map Prepared by Brian Carson January 21, 2011
Attachment 3 5
RESOLUTION NUMBER: ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~J`o~
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS
RELATED TO THE LOCATION OF WIRELESS SUPPOT STRUCTURES ON
COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 5.10.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO')
establishes parameters for the adoption of a Master Telecommunication Plan for the purpose of
assisting wireless providers search for suitable locations to build wireless support structures; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.10.6 of the UDO establishes parameters for the administrative
approval of certain. telecommunication wireless support structures, no taller than 150 feet in height, on
County owned property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Orange County has determined that any
telecommunication wireless support structure located on County owned property, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 5.10.6 of the UDO, should be required to adhere to certain notification and
testing requirements as denoted within the UDO; and
WHEREAS, It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County to
require all telecommunication wireless support structures located on County property, regardless of
their height, to abide by the same submittal requirements for such projects on privately owned
property.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Orange
County that telecommunication wireless support structures located on County property shall abide by
the following submittal and process requirements:
a. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING: Interested parties shall be required to schedule a
pre-application meeting with County staff to review the proposal to locate a
telecommunication wireless support structure on County owned property.
At a nunimum, the following County staff shall attend this meeting:
1. County Manager or his/her designee,
2. Planning Director,
3. Economic Development Director,
4. Director of Information Technologies (IT),
5. Director of Purchasing,
6. County Attorney
b. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment shall be
completed for all projects subject to the following:
6
SITE INVESTIGATION: Once the applicant requests apre-development
meeting to discuss the development of the tower, Planning staff will conduct
an on-site inspection of the property to document existing conditions. Staff
will be evaluating the property with respect to:
1. Presence of streams/floodplain areas,
2. Determine if the location of the proposed tower is in an area of the
property where it will be more visible to adjacent property owners,
3. Presence of substantial trees or significant vegetation that ought to be
preserved,
4. Determine if the project will impact any existing development on the
property, and
5. Other relevant factors.
ii. EVALUATION: Working with representatives of the Department of
Environment Parks and Recreation (DEPR), Planning staff will analyze
existing environmental conditions to determine if the environmental
assessment is required.
iii. DECISION: Staff will inform the applicant (i.e. County/lessor and/or lessee)
is an environmental assessment will be required as part of their application
submittal based on the factors outlined herein and as contained within the
UDO.
c. BALLOON TEST: A balloon test shall be completed subject to the following:
i. TEST: The balloon test be conducted a minimum of four (4) weeks prior to
the formal submittal of the site plan application to the Current Planning
Department for review and processing.
ii. NOTIFICATION: The applicant shall be required to:
1. Send certified mail notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of
the property informing them of the exact date and time of the test.
These notices shall be post marked and sent, at a minimum, fifteen
(15) calendar days prior to the date of the actual test.
2. Advertise the date and time of the balloon test in a paper of local
circulation, as approved by the Department, two (2) weeks prior to the
date of the test. This notice shall appear once a week for two (2)
consecutive weeks with the first ad to be not less than ten (10) days
nor more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the date of the
aforementioned test.
As part of the application submittal, the applicant shall be required to submit proof of
their adherence to this policy via copies of the certified mail receipts and an affidavit
concerning the newspaper advertisement.
d. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: A Neighborhood Information
Meeting (MINI) shall be held to allow for local residents to review the project in
accordance with the following:
7
i. DATE OF MEETING: The NIM shall be scheduled to occur within thirty
(30) days of the receipt of a completed site plan application for the tower,
ii. NOTIFICATION: The applicant shall be required to:
1. Send certified mail notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of
the property informing them of the exact date and time of the NIM.
2. These notices shall be post marked and sent, at a minimum, fourteen
(14) calendar days prior to the date of the meeting.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of
2011.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
2011 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2011.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Attachment 4
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 28, 2011,
at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) -Continuation of November 22, 2010
public hearing: The November 22, 2010 public hearing was continued to February
28, 2011 to give the public more time to review the proposed document.
The public hearing draft of the UDO is available on the Planning Department's
website at: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/UDO asp. A paper copy is
available for public review in the Planning Department office located at 131 W.
Margaret Lane, Suite 201 in Hillsborough, NC during regular business hours
(Monday -Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). A paper copy is also available for review during
the regular hours of each of the following libraries: Orange County Main Library in
Hillsborough, Chapel Hill Library in Chapel Hill, and the Carrboro Cybrary in
Carrboro.
Pu ose: To receive additional citizen comment on the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO).
2. Master Telecommunications Plan Map: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 6.18 Telecommunication Towers and Equipment and Section 6.18.5 Master
Telecommunication Plan of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the County
proposes the adoption of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) Map. The
purpose of the MTP is to identify potential properties where telecommunication
providers are encouraged to develop, redevelop, modify, or expand
telecommunication facilities. The plan is further intended to illustrate an efficient
distribution of telecommunication facilities that will benefit the public at large. The
MTP Map, once adopted, may be modified on an annual basis at the February
Quarterly Public Hearing.
Properties identified on the MTP Map may include:
• Public sites (i.e. County or government owned property),
• Quasi-publicly owned~property (i.e. volunteer fire departments, public utilities,
etc), and
• Private property where current owners have expressed a formal interest to
the County in locating telecommunication towers.
9
The draft MTP Map is available on the Planning Department's web site at
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/index.asp. There are currently ten proposed
properties located on the MTP Map. Current owners may make a request to have
their properties added to the map by submitting a formal application to the Planning
Department. All applications require apre-application meeting. Submittal of requisite
technical design plans is necessary before an application is found to be complete.
The proposed MTP Map identifies potential location(s) for telecommunications
facilities including locations that serve, or may be required to serve, the public safety
and information technology telecommunications network.
Approval of the MTP Map only pre-identifies potential telecommunication sites. It
does not formally approve a specific application for the shown properties allowing for
the development of telecommunication towers nor does it exempt providers from
obtaining all required permit approvals consistent with the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance may or may not require the issuance of a special
use permit. Towers 150 feet in height or less on County property, irrespective of
being included on the MTP Map, are approved administratively rather than requiring
a Class B Special Use Permit, as per section 6.18.1. Private sites, to be eligible for
administrative approval, must be less than 150 feet in height and either lease the
tower to the public for public safety purposes or allow the public to collocate antennas
on the tower at no charge.
No formal applications proposing the development of telecommunication facilities
have been received or will be approved through this scheduled public hearing.
Purpose:- To review the item and receive citizen comment on the Master
Telecommunications Plan Map.
3. Zoning Ordinance or Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendment: In accordance with Article Twenty (20) of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance (Section 2.8 of the proposed UDO), Mr. Ben Lloyd has
submitted a zoning text amendment petition to amend Section 4.3 Table of
Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 5.2 of the UDO) modifying the
Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) use category to allow the sale and
rental of motor vehicles in the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) zoning
district as a permitted use.
Within his application, Mr. Lloyd is proposing to cap the allowable number of
automobiles displayed/stored on NC-2 zoned property to twelve (12).
If approved, the proposed text amendment will be incorporated into either
Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance or Section 5.2
Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO (whichever document is in effect at the time
of approval).
Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed text
amendment.
Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request
is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by
calling the one of the phone numbers below. The full text of the public hearing items
may be obtained after February 18, 2011 from the Planning Department (Note: the
2
10
UDO is available only digitally via the Department's website or a CD containing a PDF
file of the document may be obtained from the Department). The agenda abstract and
attachments may also be obtained at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the
Meeting Agendas link prior to the meeting.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH:
News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
February 16, 2011 February 16, 2011
February 23, 2011 February 23, 2011
Attachment 5
APPROVED 4/5/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 28, 2011
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the
DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board
Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members
Pete Hallenbeck, Larry Wright, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
Andrea Rohrbacher, Alan Campbell, and Tommy McNeill.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: May Becker and Samantha Cabe
3. Master Telecommunications Plan Map - To review the item and receive citizen.
comment on the Master Telecommunications Plan Map.
[Note: Item C.3 is only a BOCC public hearing; the item is not referred to the Planning Board].
Public Hearing:
Review and Adoption of the
Master Telecommunication Plan (MTP) Map
Application Specifics:
Review and adoption of the MTP Map in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.18, including
6.18.5 of the Ordinance
Board is being asked to adopt the attached map denoting properties where telecommunication towers
have been deemed suitable for location
Map contains publicly owner properties (i.e. County), quasi publicly owned properties (i.e. fire
departments), and private properties where owners have expressed written interest
Background -what does map do:
Serves as a marketing tool for staff in identifying underserved portions of the County needed
expanded service,
12
Provides available locations to telecommunication providers on where.towers are needed,
Assists the County to address existing impediments to essential County communications.
Adoption represents a proactive step by the County to comprehensively address local communication
issues and access to services
Background what map does NOT do:
Create an automatic exemption for these properties from the normal review and approval process for
towers, including .any necessary public hearings (Class A and B Special Use Permits)
Eliminate the need for permits prior to the start of construction (i.e. Zoning Compliance, Erosion
Control, and Building)
Convey or establish a greater use of property than otherwise exists within the Ordinance.
Times Have Changed
Public safety response,
Information technology info exchange
Economic development
Enable core competency of government through improved service delivery
70% of emergency calls from cell phones
Broadband demand from citizens
MTP Map Includes:
The Map Denotes:
Viable locations for cell towers
Existing tower locations
Major transmission towers
Natural areas
Historic properties
Scenic corridors
Volunteer agricultural districts
Properties on Map:
Map includes the following properties:
County properties (i.e. Northern Park, Cedar Grove Park, County Soccer Fields, Walnut Grove Solid
Waste site)
OWASA property
Volunteer fire departments (i.e., Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Eno, White Cross)
Privately-Owned (i.e. Mellot)
13
County Owned Properly Self Imposed Conditions:
Staff has recommended that the County consider imposing conditions concerning processing of
administrative requests involving County property, including:
Requiring a balloon test
Notification of adjacent property owners via certified mail
Scheduling and holding of a neighborhood information meeting
Staff requests direction from the BOCC on these matters
Recommendations:
The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
1. Receive the item.
2. Conduct a public hearing and accept all public comments on the subject.
3. Adjourn hearing to the April 5, 2011 regular meeting for action by the Commissioners.
It should be noted that there is no action required by the Planning Board on this item.
Commissioner Jacobs asked why there were no self-imposed conditions. Craig Benedict
said that it is not a requirement of the Master Telecommunications Plan to have self-imposed
conditions. The fire stations do not have to do a balloon test. He said that this is a separate item for
when the County is a participant.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the minutes from December 14"' and said that the
motion spec~cally said to ask staff to bring to the public hearing criteria which the County would
apply to its own site. He asked if reading it aloud at the public hearing was considered bringing it to
the public hearing, or if it is putting it in the material that the public sees.
Craig Benedict said that he would bring back a resolution to the Board with self-imposing
criteria at the second meeting in May.
Brian Crawford made reference to Commissioner Cordon's recommendation at the beginning
of the meeting and said that the. staff recommendation did not include a Planning Board action. He
asked what she wanted the Planning Board to review.
Commissioner Gordon said that it would be important for the Planning Board to read the
portions of Section 6.18 related to this discussion. The question has to do with the difference in the
process that a person must follow when applying for permission to build a telecommunications tower.
Is it a special use permit process or not, is there a balloon test, etc. With respect to the process, what
is the significance of a site being placed on the MTP map. She made reference to page 356 and the
criteria for ranking sites.
Craig Benedict said that this is a policy issue and it is not what is being reviewed tonight. This
is not a regulation change that is being requested. The request is to use an element of the existing
code.
Discussion ensued with Brian Crawford and Commissioner Gordon about the private sites.
Commissioner Foushee asked about the process of private properties enrolling and how
property owners would know that the County was considering enrolling the properties.
14
Craig Benedict said that the intent to have a master plan has been advertised over the years
and the property owners have had the ability to fill out an application to be part of the plan. This is the
first phase. and other property owners will be accepted in the next phase.. There have been no
exclusions in the applicants.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the ordinance is not being changed. He read the second
bullet point on page 355. "Any tower less than 150 feet in height on which the owner of such facility
permits the County to co-locate its wireless facilities on a structure, etc., as determined at the sole
discretion of the County; those towers do not have to go through the balloon test." Therefore, any
private site that is designated on this map does not have to go through the balloon test.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tony Blake said that he is President of the White Cross Fire Department and there is a hole
with cell tower coverage and they support this on their site. He said that some of the 911 calls come
in on cell phones and it is important to have coverage in this area.
Matthew Danielson said that staff directed him to one of the cell sites and he is a cell tower
developer. His company wants to develop a tower in the southeast portion of the County. He said
that he is willing to go down on the height of the tower if it means not going through the public hearing
process.
Amy Scott is a rural property owner in Cedar Grove and based on the map, there is a large
gap in coverage in this area. She said that she understands that the only way she can proceed
forward is to bring maps of the property and ask to be formally added to the plan. She would like to
be added to the master telecommunications plan. She said that she has ten acres of land and she
has no cell phone coverage in this area. She also has no DSL or cable in this area.
Patrick Mulkey lives on Stanford Road. He said that he does not own a cell phone. He
commended the staff on the plan of how to deal with County-owned property and communicating to
the neighbors. He said that there is no notice posted on the property and this was excluded in the
requirements. He said that by creating the criteria followed by the County, it is pushing the business
community away from the County site. He would like to see these criteria apply to anything under 150
feet. He lives next to OWASA and they do not communicate with the neighborhood. He thinks that it
is important that neighbors communicate with each neighbor.
With reference to the Planning Board discussing this item, Planning Board member Pete
Hallenbeck said that the intent of this is great but the details need to be worked out.
Frank Clifton said that the staff intent is to get the Board to authorize moving forward with the
publicly owned sites. Any private owner that wants to enlist their property that complies with the
zoning regulations could be added to the list of willing participants.
Commissioner Jacobs said that, in an effort to move this along, this is an appropriate thing to
be visited during Phase II of the UDO.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to:
1. Receive the proposal for the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) map contained in
the agenda abstract.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public comments on the subject of the proposed
MTP map.
15
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the second meeting in May, 2011
BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until the second meeting in May, 2011 in order to receive the
Planning Board recommendations and any submitted written comments.
Commissioner Jacobs said that there was no Planning Board recommendation requested at
this point, so he wanted to ask the Planning Board to revisit this in Phase II of the UDO.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like the Planning Board to see this.
Chair Petissier said that what was passed at the beginning of the meeting did not give clear
direction to the Planning Board. She suggested a new motion that revises the date and specifies
what is being asked of the Planning Board.
Commissioner Gordon said that the Planning Board needs to review the advantages of
getting on the map. She suggested giving everyone the chance to apply to get on the MTC map and
to receive the revenue for a tower. The sites would still have to meet the criteria.
Commissioner Hemminger said that this is the purview of the Board of Commissioners and it
is not a Planning Board issue.
Commissioner Jacobs called the motion to question.
VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon); Nays,
4
MOTION FAILED
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
approve the staff recommendation (moving the date to the second meeting in May) and refer to the
Planning Board and Planning staff in Phase II of the UDO any additional considerations regarding
cell towers.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner
Yuhasz)