Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH ORD-2002-033 Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text AmendmentsORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 25, 2002 ~~~3 o,~,p _ ~oo z. -a.~3 Action Agenda Item No. C.2.a. SUBJECT: Orange County Master Telecommunications Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): ; INFORMATION CONTACT: Process used to Identify Potential Sites ~Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592 Proposed Ordinance Language Background Information on MTP's from International City/County ICMA Management Association TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To review the proposed Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) and decide if Orange County wishes to pursue the adoption of the MTP concept and process. This public hearing does not designate properties at this time. It is primarily a public hearing on the concept. BACKGROUND: Planning Staff have been working on the preparation of a map that identifies properties that may be suitable for inclusion in the initial adoption of the Orange County Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP). An MTP pre-identifies properties that are reasonable for tower locations and serve a public function or benefit. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance currently provide a"place holder" for the adoption of an MTP should the Board of County Commissioner desire to adopt such a plan now or in the future. If the county does not approve an MTP the proposed `telco' zoning ordinance can still function but without the efficiency in tower location that an MTP could provide through multiple use public function sites. The Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act set forth a new regulatory framework for the deployment of telecommunication facilities. In essence, the federal government wanted to limit the authority of local government regulation that created a"barrier to entry" of new "tetco" facilities that would create the public interest "information highway". Since then, all local ~ governments have grappled with the limits of their authority in this field to protect their local interests through zoning. As a result, local regulations have been pushed to a somewhat uncharted limit of authority that has led to hundreds of lawsuits that sought to resolve the balance intended in the 1996 Telco Act. G:1Current Planning Div\Tking~P,bstract.MTP.November 25, 2002 PH V~Y Accordingly, Orange County has recommended changes to its telecommunieation tower ordinance to stay up-to-date with the law, technology and consultant technical expertise opportunities. As an overreaching plan to address many telecommunication issues and programs, an MTP is often u4ed to organize and create a game plan for implementation. An MTP can have various elements related to the different application of telecommunication facilities. From towers to underground to technological advancement of computer/internet services, the MTP can offer a mechanism to promote a policy to plan for the future. The MTP (wireless tower element) is the element that is being proposed with this aqenda item The MTP (wireless tower element) was the subject of department meetings over the last six months and is intended to address the continued protection of the public health, safety and welfare through communication facilities and to create public safety communication opportunities on public property whereby fair and reasonable compensation would be forthcoming. • "Local communities are the key to better land use. But first, each must define a vision for the future. 7'his vision includes an inventory.of resources, respect for established traditions and articu/ation of community values. To realize a vision, local leaders must enlist all sectors in devising land use plans and execute those plans with greater efficiency and flexibility. No community retains its character by accident." (Land Use in America, Diamond and Noonan, 1996) On August 12, 2002, Staff held a meeting with potential participants in the Master Telecommunication Plan ("Plan") program to gauge interest in the Plan. Six persons attended the meeting. Farmers participating in the Voluntary Agricultural District program were particularly interested in additional revenue sources to help offset rising farming expenses and to promote sustainability. According to those farmers present, the additional income from land leases to telecommunication providers could be the difference in continuing to farm versus having to sell off parts of the farm to pay for rising costs and operating expenses. 2 On November 14, 2002, Staff held a meeting with property owners that.own property that may be suitable for inclusion in the MTP. Only three persons of the sixteen that were notified attended the meeting. Statements regarding additional revenue to farmers were reiterated from the August 12, 2002 meeting at the meeting. The proposed Master Telecommunication Plan ("Plan") contains the following: 1. New provision will create the opportunity for the BOCC to consider a two-phase approval process for towers less than 200 feet in height. The Plan works as follows: a. Initial Plan participants request to be included in the Plan (private, public, quasi- public and public interest lands may be available to develop an efficient grid system) which. can reduce the overall number of towers. b. The Planning Sfaff will notify adjoining owners in accordance with ordinance provisions and the Plan will proceed to quarterly public hearing. c. Advocates and opponents of the Plan will be afforded the opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the Plan d. After Planning Board recommendation, the BOCC will have final approval authority on the Plan. G:1Current Planning Div\Tking~Abstract.MTP.November 25, 2002 PH e. If the Plan is adopt performance evalu Board approval prc f. Additions to the PI~ Public Hearing). A ad, mailing; etc) is e. Withdrawal from th from the owner(s) t 3025 ;d, telecommunication providers shall meet the same ~tion standards for a building permit as they currently meet in the ;,ess. ~ n will only be considered annually (proposed at the February Fee to cover advertisement and administrative processing (legal -roposed. : Plan can be accomplished by submitting a notarized statement iat requests that their property be withdrawn from the Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No finan~ial impact at this time with human resources being used from existing departmental staffs. Eventually, the use of an MTP could provide financial and public benefits. Department involvem~nt would eventually include but not be limited to, Planning and Inspections Department, EMS, ~Sheriff, Information Services, Purchasing, Public Works, ERCD, and Parks and Recreation. ! RECOMMENDATION(S): The~'~,Administration recommends that the Board approve the pursuit of finalization of the MTP and p~epare the Plan for formal adoption through the public hearing process. , G:\Current Planning Div\Tking~Abstract.MTP.Noviember 25, 2002 PH ~aw~,u~wnu~muivar:uttur~;c~ttu~a~r~uir.tti:ntiim m v ~~, a ~i ~ ;e ,. . \ Sri 5.1~ SUIG4G`.S:Sti7:llFsi_1~iaNalll4iPSi21L•.i:iXiliu:\iiflUdililSYSliSlli:l:ulSililSklf;4iit'sisilYx:i;;l::iail~il4Y:il1~`i:dli.lYlt'..i.r.P.1U:Fd',illi?i\CiR1lS~:n:v'1U,411FilG\lk\1\l13f+S~ S1TS 4P~~1"~i•~i`~"~ •~iK~ t`z'::t ?"Y;~i ' ~t~~ : ~y`~. •.~i••. I .~ ~E\S.St..c,...u.1Si\.>.~l~i~.~~i.i,t..11lil....~i,t11111li1tL11ii~:\~.alir:F4;:i1iSllAlu.~I1t~S O ~ ~ 0~7 PROCESS USE~ IN IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES TO BE INCLUDED IN''~,THE ORANGE C~UNTY, NC MASTER TEL~COMMUNICATIQNS PLAN ~ 1. COMPILED BASE • TAX PARCELS • ROAD NETWOI • RESERVOIRS • TOWNSHIP BO 2. PREPARED OVE OF COUNTY IDENTIFYING: ~DARIES YS IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS OF: • DUKE POWER T~RANSMISSION LINES & PROPERTIES • PIEDMONT E~.ECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION (PEMC) TRANSMISSION ILINES & PROPERTIES • DUKE FOREST RROPERTIES • ENO RIVER STA~fiE PARK PROPERTIES • SCHOOL PARC~LS ~ • ORANGE WATE~t & SEWER AUTHORITY (OWASA) PROPERTIES • FIRE STATIONS I, • COUNTY OWNE~ PARCELS - • SEMI-PUBLIC PF~OPERTIES (CHURCHES, COMMUNITY CENTERS) • EXISTING TELE~OMMUNICATIONS TOWERS • VOLUNTARY AG~~ICULTURAL DISTRICTS 3. DISPLAYED BUFFE~S INDICATING ESTIMATED COVERAGE RANGES FOR THE TOWERS ANlD POSSIBLE ANTENNA CO-LOCATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING: '', • 1 & 2 , IVpILE RADIUS BUFFERS AROUND EXISTING TELECOMMUNIC~ATIONS TOWERS • 1 MILE BUFFER', (EITHER SIDE) OF EXISTING DUKE POWER & PEMC TRANSMISSION ~.INES 4. IDENTIFICATION CpF GAPS OR HOLES OUTSIDE OF ESTIMATED COVERAGE AREAS'' ~ . 5. IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTIES LISTED IN #1 ABOVE THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE p,REAS OUTSIDE OR ON THE FRINGES OF AREAS OF ESTIMATED COVEF~AGES AS DETERMINED IN #3 ABOVE. ,.ir:^,~rx~•.•,h~s hin~...:•.n,....,...,i,,..~~~.,a,,,,.w~•,,,~,.c,,....•....,.... .....................,~,-.,~..... .: .......... . „ ,., ~...... L..a S:.\i At.h L 3".R. 1i..84 S,5 Yil1113a4idie$? VshRSL.11.s, t1.5, t, i.lr f•F ~, t t ~~ ~t ~. ~~ i , ii, h,aAdn..1.3.u.K..3..1:~a11.L3c~4:l~a4ul~ai,Yil:3S.~.a\,v:~~ l ~ .~t~ ,1~. ~ t ,~ic •Z, t r,~i < <•k`l ~ ~~y.; •,C.~. _•.a•~;.~~.,ss~~e~~ir.•~•a~e:t: ~ •.~y ~ ,~•w . I i....31usF.~,.~5~,...1.0...v.t,.la3.sttl...111l.~>Il 1,~<.i,~3~?3:1. ~..i11;~:F1:~`lltx„i~i1~C`lt;'i?tir.~.a\~•i_,1,1:.t~i c`l+.Ia~:~,.n?;?iii.li\«L\it~~i~il~iiS~.trt~it~t4~~;et1?S~iit;l~c\~a~.~.`:i~~~U~2}14~i1~u o~~ PROPOS~D ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN (MTP) 6.18.5 Master Telecommunications Plan ("Plan") As an alternative to the foregoing provisions, an applicant for a new telecommunication tower less than two hundred (200) feet in height may elect to participate in the Orange County Master Telecommunications Plan ("Plan"). The County may develop a plan which specifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a wireless telecommunications tower facility by seeking issuance of•a Building Permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan. The Plan shall be presented at a quarterly public hearing. After the quarterly public hearing, the Plan will be presented to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. If adopted, the applicant may apply for necessary Building Permits on properties approved in the Plan. Properties approved in the Plan shall not be subject to an additional, separate public hearing process on any proposed telecommunication tower included in the Plan. Applicants will be required to meet all Ordinance requirements and shall pay a site plan approval and building application fee as provided for in the Orange County Schedule of Fees. a) Information •to be provided. All telecommunication providers who elect to construct on properties approved in the Plan shall provide all necessary and requested information to the County's telecommunications consultant. Such information shall include that set forth in this Ordinance, for each telecommunications site which it currently operates within the County, as well as each site which it reasonably believes it will require within the County for the next five (5) years. b) Plan- modification. Modifications to the Plan shall be ~ considered annually at the February Quarterly Public Hearing. Any applicant requesting modification of the Plan shall make a~plication to the Zoning Officer on or befor~ December 15t of each year. The fee for annual modification of the Plan shall be that as set forth in the Orange County Schedule of Fees. c) The County shall use signal propagation methods and professional engineers qualified in this discipline and assure compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations. G:\Current Planning Div\Tking\Master Telco Plan Ordinance Language a:munti~cnusimnmssu4vs~~i:ninwu~ss~u~ta:sw.~cau:u!:ixa:ttti)u;~Yawwei::..xaxuttuti L~:lFssv.w~:iL;iuA;ul`::a~s8a3t~t.~rt~j~ •••• • •~.,. ~~ ,•+ <~~ ~ ,... ,.~ ~ .,.., .. ,... st.sa4,4..~.i,L.l.ullS...d..~t.S~,;1~fixnliFT~{c~Ult.U4i~Yntik:.v:i.'ttiUll,lti.L`iRSllll`:S;SI;i S~lil1?:Y\\lCd?Y.}dlrl~.l'ti4i111;11S11Y~iill'dllill~:~:i:$lt`'v~oiis\l,tpa51~';S\;1.\11~:11iZF~~1~1:~311~\L~i11~F!C:u.1'~.il'ir`.li.':1 ~29 d) All sites specified in the Plan shall be deemed permitted sites for the construction of telecommunications towers without the necessity of further public hearing. For those sites specified on the Plan which are on property owned or controlled by the County (regardless of zoning classification), the applicant shall, prior to seeking a Building Permit for such use, negotiate and execute a lease agreement with the County for such site upon terms and conditions which are acceptable to the County. e) Withdrawal from the Plan. Withdrawal from the Plan is permitted by submitting a notarized statement requesting withdrawal from the Plat~. G:\Current Planning DivlTking\Master Telco Plan Ordinance Language ,F,,. , ;,,.,n..,,,n. , ,,. ~1} t 11. . v ~x.•' . a1.,atU\ \l U~u • r. •. n.: • ~ illlllilLit;4ll:ri Sl'r"`.~..• 'd\ iv , U! S}..alulldiFnl!St h.1i1111\CW13, . '. Pp, ~-i~~• ~~c ~ , r:: ~ ~ .,i~ setileP\1;}~4..aSk<~lP.~i1~3`.\e.~~t1SaF.lS1l1\,lltilfiil':L\~i.61~\.~.\lyti`i`~' , 1':~;' ~ i ~'~¢••• : ~~~ . ~ iCi~~~F~ t rl'~ ~..~ ~,ri;n~s :•.q•e~ ..~~.. •.~~~.~ a.~.,, I i i~".;itFl`:\1Si~3tut~.llt,l'tsi1.+1S,3,\i4a,aut~iZk"':iiu11\,Sa„l,a1G,~3Si.a1~l~nt.sll:1~,'~~tgL1~F•SlV1~E1,a.,?SSs,~i.t.l3i~l~i.a@`~~Ns~.~;i'ltil'Ul3`Nl:t:~.~~".l~~l~a1i~~`m~1~~~;1~N:iiitii0l; ~ ~ a TFT.F.f'[1MMi1NiC'.ATTCINC~ PT.~NNiN(,' T~(li2 TXYTi". Ti'Yi'1'Tmr~ Exce~pt from: International City/County ICMA Management Association Local governments aze praviders, users, and regulators of telecommunication service. Many local governrn~nts have already jumped to the fore with strategic plans to seek out partnerships with the public and industry to assure that local infrastructure is developed to assure economic vitality, right-of-way ma.nagement, and public benefits. We've seen strategic alliances and - cxeadve regulatory schemes being develbped by local governments all over the counlr~: in . Blacksburg, Virg~in~ia; Milpitas, Califortua; Seattle, Washingtan, Austin, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri Braomfield, Colarado; Clark County, Nevada; and many other places. In response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all communities would be wise to reevaluate their ongoing plans, or get started on developing new ones, because the rules have changed, the business motivations aze changing, and our consuming public wants more and better information services at affordable rates. ~ A good plan appraaches telecammunications as a means to reach a goa1: a goal of achieving economie prosperity, consumer protection, and satisfying the public and civic interest. Looal government's seIf interest ~n planning for an ef~'ective telecommunications infrastructure is to protect its property, the public right-of-way, while maintaining a balance between the varied needs and interests af the public, the uidustry, and the government. The basic pwposes of any telecomrnunications plan aze to • Maintain lacal contxol of the rights-of-way • Establish appro~riate quid pro quos for the use of public property • Satisfy the needs of consumers and the public interest, by retaining rate stability (when not satisfied via a competitive marketplace), offexing constuner educati.on and protecdon, pmviding for effective carapetition in a developing mazketplace, and applyi.ng appropriate and necessary regulations in a uniform fashion. The new Telecommunications Act preserves the rights of Iocal gaveinments to protect public safety and welfare, preserve universal sernice, ensure service quality, prote~t cansumer rights, manage the public right-of-way, and receive compensation for its use. All of this must be dome in a competitively neutral fashion. And wlule the concept of competitive neutrality, a basic sense of equity, is not new to local govemments, what is new under the new federal law, is how "telecommunications" campetitors are defined.. ~ o ~~'z°~ ~. ~ ~-33 f!f ~ ~~ .~c o ~ Commissioner Brown would like this addressed at some point to make sure that it is only an option that is available in public water and sewer areas. Barry Katz asked fhe Board of County Commissioners to review the village options. He said that the only place where a village option would make sense would be where there was access to municipal services or public water and sewer. Geoff Gledhill read from section 8.8.29.1, subsection `d' as follows: "If the residential lots are proposed to be served by a community water and/or sewer system, proof that the systems will be operating either directly or through a contract with the water and/or sewer provider whose service area or interest area as defined in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement include the subdivided land." This is attempting to open the door to these community systems if the utility provider would be responsible for them. Commissioner Gordon said that the provision on page nine deserves further scrutiny. She does not believe that this says what Geoff Gledhill explained. It needs to be said more clearly somehow. Craig Benedict will work with Geoff Gledhill on this. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the village option should have public water and sewer. Renee Price is concerned about cost and the impact this has on others. She asked who would pick up the tab for running the line. There was no public comment on this item. c~:~ e. Amend the Subdivision Regulations to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. This is addressed in item 2-b. These items (1a-e and 2b) have similar subdivision and zoning issues and the recommendation from staff is to refer them to the Planning Board and return to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 21 St for review. Item 2b is as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer items 1 a-e and 2b to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 21, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ~ 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Amend Article 6.18 to allow development of a"Master Telecommunications Plan' which identifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a wireless telecommunications facility by seeking issuance of a building permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan. Craig Benedict said that this is something that the Board of County Commissioners has heard to amend our telecommunications ordinance. Earlier this year, there was a six-month moratorium on telecommunication towers. There was a placeholder in the regulations that refers to a Master Telecommunications Plan, which can identify sites in the County that can be used by the industry that would limit the amount of total sites that could be used for future towers. During the moratorium, there were meetings with other departments to find out if there were any County properties that could be involved in the plan. These plans are normal in North Carolina and in other states. He spoke about why a Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) is reasonable. The County can develop a significant amount of non-tax revenue from towers being located on local government property. This plan is a decision of the Board of County Commissioners and if the Board does not want to participate, then that element can become inactive, but it will not affect the other parts of the ordinance. The plan must be approved through the public hearing process, but this will not be done tonight. Commissioner Brown asked if all of the adjacent property owners of a proposed tower would be notified. Craig Benedict said that in order to be on the MTP, everyone within the 500 foot radius around the proposed site would be notified and would have the ability to make public comment. Craig Benedict then described the process the staff went through to develop the Master Telecommunications Plan. Each pole should provide for at least four carrier locations. Other areas included in the plan are voluntary agricultural districts. Most of these areas have poor coverage, so they would be ideal for tower locations. All of the potential locations for the public/quasi-public sites have been narrowed'down to 10-15 sites. Some of the sites include the Lee Miller Voluntary Ag District, the Tate Voluntary Ag District, Cedar Grove Fire Station, Cedar Grove Ruritan Club, some property owned by Robert Nutter, White Cross Volunteer Fire Station, and some Duke University property. Craig Benedict said that there have been six or seven meetings with department heads and stakeholders and all have received this plan positively. Renee Price aske~d about notification of neighbors and making the area 1,000 feet. Craig Benedict said that 500 feet is the present number. He said that if they proceed with the MTP, then they will advertise in the paper about the potential sites and give citizens a chance to speak about the sites. Renee Price asked about the review process every year. Craig Benedict said that there would be a review process if someone wants to add something to the MTP. Chair Gooding-Ray asked about identified school parcels with these sites. Craig Benedict said that most of the schools were in the urban area coverage, and the coverage there was reasonable. Chair Gooding-Ray said that the staff needs to look at the health issues concerning the towers, especially regarding children. Commissioner Brown asked about the original plan to have one meeting and then the change to four meetings a year. Craig Benedict said that they will still have one annual meeting. But applicants can still come in twice a year. For a Class A, there will be a meeting in December to find out what the applicants are going to do within the next year and then it will be plugged in to two quarterly public hearings. The Board of Adjustment wants the Class B applicants to come in on a regular basis. This board did not want a lot of applications ~coming in all at once. Public Comment Carl Walters said that he is not asking for a cell tower on his property line, but he would like to offer some options. He would like for a conservation farm to be considered first, if it is next to a fire station. The income generated for the farm by having a tower could extend the life of the farm. There was no one else signed up to speak. Craig Benedict said that the staff is asking the Board whether they should proceed with another public hearing in the first quarter of 2003 to bring letters of intent to the 10-15 property owners. There would be notification of everyone within 500 feet of the property. They would like to proceed in the first quarter of 2003. Commissioner Gordon asked for Craig Benedict to list the sites again. There are two sites on the Walters' property that are voluntary ag sites. Lee Miller is another voluntary ag site. Orange County has some possible sites - NC 86 (possible Public Works site), Lake Orange. OWASA has some sites outside of the critical area. White Cross Fire Station is a possibility as well as Oak Grove Baptist Church. The property owners need to sign a document saying that they are definitely interested in being a part of the MTP program. Commissioner Gordon asked if preference would be given to a voluntary ag site. Commissioner Carey asked about property beside a County site and a conflict of interest. Craig Benedict said that they could not push preferences for any sites. He said that the process that the County will go through to offer the land for telecommunication purposes will be the same process that a private entity can use. Chair Jacobs asked about how to advertise that these opportunities are available. He asked how we would let people in the agricultural community know that this is a possibility. Craig Benedict said that if someone wants to enter the voluntary ag system in the coming year, the MTP can be adjusted to add their property. This incentive can be sent to the Ag Preservation Board and ERCD. He said that they also sent notices out to all of the fire stations. John Link said that as the staff is notifying joint owners, they will share the information with the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners first prior to sending it out. Chair Jacobs asked about hiring a consultant to refine this plan. He asked if that would be part of a subsequent process or this process. Craig Benedict said that they need a consultant to respond to the applications that come forward. The fee structure in the amendments will pay for the consultants. When the consultant is hired, they can be used to refine the MTP. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Administration's recommendation to approve the pursuit of finalization of the Master Telecommunications Plan and to direct staff to prepare the Plan for formal adoption through the public hearing process and to bring back in the first quarter of 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Amend Article 6.29.3 to create a Secondary Development Area south of I-85 in the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (EDD). Craig Benedict said that the entire EDD was considered a primary development area (retail, industrial, manufacturing, etc.). The suggested change in the secondary development area would allow for some banking and institutional uses and also some residential uses. The residential uses would be multi-family and not single- family detached. The suggestion is that animal houses and kennels, construction, and manufacturing would not be allowed in the secondary development area. Commissioner Gordon asked about the impetus for bringing this forward at this time. She thinks that this is the most appropriate place for this type of development and not secondary development. Craig Benedict said that there has not been any activity in the non-residential sector in this sector at all. If there can be a lead use to spur infrastructure, it might open up the entire area that could lead to a water and sewer system.