Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-25-2002-c2a103 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 25, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. C.2.a. SUBJECT: Oran a Count Master Telecommunications Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): Process used to Identify Potential Sites Proposed.Ordinance Language Background Information on MTP's from International City/County ICMA Management Association INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592 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 "telco" 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:\Current Planning Div\TkingWbstract.MTP.November 25, 2002 PH „'l a t:, a._lUl:'i~Si;l`sC\l,!1`,11AP.~; `l1i:d1\i.C111~11t 111ti+;'.1 ~ !ill i~. c~t .1~i•.f~::':1?L:l'~;11U:dF}`.`.:!1: t,1i :~.1.:~1'~,l :t..`.w .~,~ .`...•, ~~.°•~••. •. ...... 024 2 Accordingly, Orange County has recommended changes to its telecommunication 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 used 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 agenda 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 fhe key to better land use. But first, each must define a vision for the future. This vision includes an inventory.of resources, respect for established traditions and articulation 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. On November 14, 2002, Staff held a meeting with properly 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 atwo-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 Staff 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:1Curcent Planning Div\TkingWbstract.MTP.November 25, 2002 PH 305 e. If the Plan is adopted, telecommunication providers shall meet the same performance evaluation standards for a building permit as they currently meet in the Board approval process. f. Additions to the Plan will only be considered annually (proposed at the February Public Hearing). A fee to cover advertisement and administrative processing (legal ad, mailing, etc) is proposed. e. Withdrawal from the Plan can be accomplished by submitting a notarized statement from the owner(s) that requests that their property be withdrawn from the Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial 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 involvement 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 prepare the Plan for formal adoption through the public hearing process. G:\Current Planning Div\Tking\Abstract.MTP.November 25, 2002 PH :1t111UiUnllri`sh1`Y9Nltl`.1\1i1411911N11HR6141~110111:1li`Slil'S4:ti1111::1P8:1~U1U.1tlYltilil`.i\41\\U1iliCP:dli`•il AilklS.:i`>AY1Gliti161'::,111:1k1dti1!i::1114•: 1k1~7•lJL`~`i1alU`.i:11M1.`.:1il::ll`:dll.`S6wru~:u+w»~~W`r~••^• ^•-•-•^•~ ^~ ~~ ' -- o~u 0 2 '7 PROCESS USED IN IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORANGE COUNTY, NC MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN 1. COMPILED BASE MAP OF COUNTY IDENTIFYING: • TAX PARCELS ROAD NETWORK • RESERVOIRS TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES 2. PREPARED OVERLAYS IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS OF: • DUKE POWER TRANSMISSION LINES & PROPERTIES • PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION (PEMC) TRANSMISSION LINES & PROPERTIES DUKE FOREST PROPERTIES • ENO RIVER STATE PARK PROPERTIES • SCHOOL PARCELS • ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY (OWASA) PROPERTIES • FIRE STATIONS • COUNTY OWNED PARCELS • SEMI-PUBLIC PROPERTIES (CHURCHES, COMMUNITY CENTERS) • EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS 3. DISPLAYED BUFFERS INDICATING ESTIMATED COVERAGE RANGES FOR THE TOWERS AND POSSIBLE ANTENNA CO-LOCATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING: • 1 & 2 .MILE RADIUS BUFFERS AROUND EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS • 1 MILE BUFFER (EITHER SIDE) OF EXISTING DUKE POWER &PEMC TRANSMISSION LINES 4. IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS OR HOLES OUTSIDE OF ESTIMATED COVERAGE AREAS 5. IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTIES LISTED IN #1 ABOVE THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE AREAS OUTSIDE OR ON THE FRINGES OF AREAS OF ESTIMATED COVERAGES AS DETERMINED IN #3 ABOVE. t - .atKli1. ?C,...:allldtl;,il:.ail ,}xulti:cG:~;11;~1i4; ta.,.~~1 ~...\~.. Rii:d'3:1.1";4;S..n;Pd,e., :a:~ ....... .................._......... t,+'~:YISS~`.1Cisl'~hY`S.'.4YuSitlilSia'.i2:' \Rit \\a1.iQ:a \ .1 uu. 31.r..?.i.~ N V PROPOSED 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 application to the Zoning Officer on or before December 15 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 029 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 Plan. G9Current Planning Div\Tking\Master Telco Plan Ordinance Language .u.n:il a i~\. a, ~+.,41.., ....+at~. t.. ; tn~i+at.~i:~1::tz:~'1l`+i:4..tilddti ~.h:i`.•;!+1....:.u.ttaa.. i.u.o.u~u~u.ni++.v+++w +A~+.+w + ... .......... S,a~a+x>l1ili:4.:iiR`:S:d,;~;lid;tF31i;'•\.~AiUSY~11u11e1+U5,:i2d.1~i:.ci;~.latai.l....i.i ~\. +~ +•.`• •, '• . ®30 F,xceipt from: International City/County ICMA Management Association Local governments are providers, users, and regulators of telecommunication service. Many local governments have akeady 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 management, and public benefits. We've seen strategic alliances and creative regulatory schemes being developed by local governments aU over the country: in Blacksburg, Virginia; Milpitas, California; Seattle, Washington, Austin, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri Broomfield, Colorado; 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 utb~ause them ~ amend e changed, the business motivations are changing, and our consuming p better information services at affordable rates. A good plan approaches telecommunications as a means to reach a goal: a goal of achieving economic prosperity, consumer protection, and satisfying the public and civic interest. Local government's self interest in planning for an effective telecommunications infrastructure is to protect its property, the public right qf--way, while maintaining a balance between the varied needs and interests of the public, the industry, and the government. The basic purposes of any telecommunications plan are to • Maintain local control oftherights-of--way • Establish appropriate 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), offering consumer education and protection, providing for effective competition in a developing marketplace, and applying appropriate and necessary regulations in a uniform fashion. The new Telecommunications Act preserves the rights of local governments to protect public safety and welfare, preserve universal service, ensure service quality, protect consumer rights, manage the public right-of--way, and receive compensation for its use. All of this must be done in a competitively neutral fashion. And while the concept of competitive neutrality, a basic sense of equity, is not new to local governments, what is new under the new federal law, is how "telecommunications" competitors are defined.