11/5/1996 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M Commissioner Macht presumed that categories of towers could be dropped out independent of the whole moratorium as the resolution is made, and County Attorney Vitunac agreed we could proceed if Director Keating decided regulations are not required on a certain subject and if it does not affect the tower application. He believed we are required, under that case law, to proceed in good faith. County Attorney Vitunac advised that staff has been in communication with all the tower providers who have read about this ordinance, by faxing them ordinances and keeping them abreast of what was being done to educate ourselves. The FCC attorney in charge of the United States tower issue has volunteered to come to explain the FCC position if the County provides air fare and a hotel. County Attorney Vitunac had also been in contact with people in Atlanta who had a similar arrangement. They had suggested to him that as long as the County works closely with the industry, shows good faith, and establishes reasonable regulations, that the Federal government would not be in opposition. He advised that the Atlanta people, who were Regional Planning Council members, decided not to adopt the ordinance after meeting with the industry representatives in that region. Instead, they set up a study group which fashioned the regulations now in place. While he has copies of those, he did not think they fit our area and thought it best to proceed with the ordinance. The regulations he mentioned would be a useful resource during the study. If the Board wished to have the FCC attorney appear before them, he suggested a motion to fund his travel expense. A brief discussion ensued about the pros and cons of bringing the FCC attorney in from Washington and, if so, to which meeting. Commissioner Bird expressed an aversion to the term "moratorium" and felt it should be used cautiously and sparingly. He wondered if it was really necessary in this particular issue, and if staff might continue to accept applications during the 6 - month period and not act upon them. County Attorney Vitunac cautioned that accepting the applications could create problems in giving them vested rights, if a complete application was made under existing law. It would be possible, however, to decide that an application would be accepted subject to no final approval until the review by Planning & Zoning. Then, if the review requires additional information, the applicant would not have acquired vested rights under the old ordinance. 59 BOOK 99 PAGE 576 November 5, 1996