Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-02-2002-9aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 2, 2002 Action Age~a Item No. SUBJECT: Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO ATTACHMENT(S): Administration Ordinance Pg 6 Table of Permitted Uses Amendment Pg 29a INFORMATION CONTACT: Recommended Changes by Planning Brd. Pg 29b Craig Benedict, Director, Ext. 2592 Planning Board Ordinance (Draft copy) Pg 46 Tom King, Planner II, Ext. 2607 Proposed Schedule of Fees Amendment Pg 67 S peakers info presented @ Public Hearing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: and Planning Board Pg 68 Minutes of August 26, 2002 Public Hearing Hillsborou h 732-8181 g Hearing Pg 96 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Minute of September 4, 2002 Planning Durham 688-7331 Board Meeting Pg 102 Mebane 336-227-2031 Map of Existing Telco Towers P 114 PURPOSE: To close the Public Hearing and to make a decision regarding the proposed Telecommunication Tower (Telco) Amendments. BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved asix- month moratorium on the processing of Special Use Permits relating to Telecommunication Towers. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow Staff sufficient time to gather information, work closely with the County Attorney's Office, prepare amendments and to make a presentation at the August 26, 2002 Quarterly Public Hearing pertaining to updating/revising the existing regulations. As the industry has been rapidly changing, so has the need to keep up to date. The Planning Staff met twice with all interested County Departments to discuss areas of common interest. EMS and IT, as well as other functions, have a stake in the telecommunications amendments. Staff held an informational meeting with telecommunication industry representatives on July 31, 2002 to receive their comments and concerns on the proposals. Seven people attended the meeting. Primary concerns were limiting application review to once per year, clarification of the `existing structures' definition, drop in tower height, required inspections and fees. 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. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the draft ordinance on August 12, 2002. That Board's primary concern was the restriction of the telecommunication application processing to two meetings per year. The Board felt that applications should be filed and processed on an as needed basis so that the workflow was even rather than point loaded at specific meetings. Some Board members questioned the need for annual inspections after a tower is approved and constructed. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: New Provisions: A) Height and User Amendments 1. Lowers height of Special Use Permit, Class B (less than 4 users), from 200 feet to 150 feet maximum. 2. Maintains height of Special Use Permit, Class B (4-user minimum), of less than 200 feet if the tower is designed and reserved for up to four users. Provides incentives and promotes co-location on existing and proposed towers. 3. Require towers greater than 150 feet height (with less than 4 users) to be processed as a Special Use Permit, Class A, which is processed through the Planning Board & Board of County Commissioners. B) An Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM) required prior to December 31 between telecommunication providers and Planning Staff 1. Determines the telecommunication industry's needs in Orange County for the coming year. 2. Will allow Staff and consultant to review industry needs and proposals to determine if co-location opportunities exist on existing facilities or on proposed new towers. 3. No applications will be accepted during the following year unless the tower was identified and discussed in the ATPM. [Exception: Unforeseen Events/Circumstances] 4. Ordinance proposes bi-annual processing of telecommunication tower applications a. Board of Adjustment to hear cases as submitted in accordance with ATPM review 1. The ordinance has been revised to allow filing of applications at any time provided the site was submitted and discussed at the ATPM. b. Board of County Commissioners to hear cases at either the May or November Quarterly Public Hearings depending on submittal date of the application. 1. The same requirements for review as exist for the Board of Adjustment. C) Ordinance promotes co-location of antenna(s) on existing buildings, transmission towers, utility poles, and similar structures through lower fees and Staff approval 1. Engineer's sealed drawings required prior to staff issuance of any permit for antenna(s). 2. Maximum height of antenna(s) above structure height set at twenty (20) feet. 3. Encourages stealth facilities; justification required if stealth antenna(s) is not proposed. 4. Limits any accessory buildings/structures pertaining to either tower(s) or antenna(s) to 600 square feet per user with a maximum height of 12 feet. D) Ordinance has higher technical standards for tower review at both the Special Use Permit and the Building Permit application stages 1. As a result of higher technical standards the County will need to contract with a telecommunication consultant for technical expertise regarding telecommunication towers. (Board comments noted this need previously.) E) Requires periodic inspections and engineer certifications on existing towers 1. Major inspections to be performed by a structural engineer every thirty-six (36) months, except in cases where a tower site has no structures, other than those associated with the tower, that are located within the tower's fall zone, or at the time of a co-location, with a report to be submitted to the Inspection Division. 2. Minor inspection (visual) to be performed yearly by the County's consultant or a properly trained Inspection staff member. 3. Requires structural analysis of existing towers within 12 months of the effective date of the ordinance. F) Master Telecommunication Plan ("Plan") Note: The revised telecommunication ordinance only creates a `place holder' for the eventual adoption of a Master Telecommunication Plan that will plug into the approved ordinance. 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). 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. 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. g. 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. G) Special Use Permit standard revisions 1. Defines overall policy and desired goals for Special Use Permits for telecommunication towers. 2. Set distance requirements between towers a. '/2 mile separation required; no separation requirement in current ordinance b. Unforeseen events defined and allows flexibility by Director within parameters 3. Increased the search ranges that applicant has to justify in order to place a new tower a. From'/2 mile to 1 mile for towers less than 150 feet height and shorter b. From 1 mile to 2 miles for towers greater than 150 feet height 4. Requirement of a balloon test with certified notification requirement by applicant to all property owners within County's required notification range 5. Provision for the requirement of an Environmental Assessment Analysis (if deemed necessary) and Visual addendum. Provision for submittal of a Visual Impact Assessment to aid in evaluation of proposed tower's visual intrusiveness H) Fee Schedule Modification 1. New fees are set forth in a separate ordinance attachment included as a part of this packet. 2. The Master Telecommunication Plan and the consultant review system was discussed at the September 3, 2002 BOCC meeting. 4 PROCESS: First Action: The Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2002. The BOCC recommended that the amendments be referred to the Planning Board at their September 4, 2002 monthly meeting for a recommendation to the BOCC no sooner than September 17, 2002. Main Issues at the Public Hearing: 1) fall zone requested to be increased to 110% of tower height a. The proposed ordinance has been amended 2) light visibility from adjacent properties and upward glare prohibited a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. 3) balloon test notification to adjoining properties certification required from applicant a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. 4) sign posting of site for balloon test date, times to be required in new ordinance a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. 5) Annual Telecommunication Projection Meeting (ATPM) a. allows Class A & B applications to proceed to provided ATPM was considered for the site b. Class A SUP applications to be considered at May and November quarterly public hearings, Class B SUP applications to be considered as necessary 6) perimeter buffers enhanced a. The proposed ordinance has been amended. 7) industry concerns addressed to the extent recommended a. dropped twice yearly meeting of Board of Adjustment from recommendation b. recommend allowing subsequent major inspection dates to be calculated from date of a co-location or prior to certificate of occupancy, whichever is greater. c. clarified `existing structure' definition d. added provision for `Unforeseen Events' for defined situations e. recommend reducing the application fees and setting up an escrow f. staff does not recommend opening up the ATPM to more than once per year g. staff does not recommend processing all SUP's at Board of Adjustment level Second Action: The Ordinance Review Committee heard the amendments on September 4, 2002. The Committee recommended that the entire Planning Board make a recommendation. Third Action: The Planning Board heard the amendments on September 4, 2002. The main issues discussed at the Planning Board meeting are as follows: 1) Recommended that `Unforeseen Events' be clarified to state that unanticipated circumstances may allow review of towers not submitted at the ATPM. Also, clarified that towers could be retrofitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. 2) Recommended revision of Section 6.18.2(d) (2) to add `6.18' to clarify the reference to `this section'. 3) Recommended that utility provider language be inserted to allow co-locations on utility poles within public right-of-way. 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).