Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-02-1999 - 9aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 2,1999 1 Action Agenda Item # 4•dl SUBJECT: SUP -2-98 Gearon Communications DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes ,x No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Findings of Fact Eddie Kirk Materials compiled in separate binder: Extension: 2582 Application and associated materials Complete record of public hearings Lists of property owners who spoke at public hearings and maps identifying their properties Minutes of Planning Board TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Durham 688-7331 Map of tower sites in Orange County Mebane 227-2031 List of tower sites showing any collocation sites Chapel Hill 967-9251 Article from Sept., `98 Zoning and Planning Law Report PURPOSE: To consider a Class A Special Use Permit application for the construction of a telecommunication tower. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Bingham Township approximately 1155 feet north of NC Highway 54 with the access proposed from O'Day Drive, an existing private road. The entrance from NC 54 is approximately 600 feet west ofBethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (SR 1104). A 2.77 acre tract is proposed with a 10,000 square foot leased area and an additional area designated as a fall zone easement. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV-PW). The applicant is requesting a Class A Special Use Permit under Article 8.8.17a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 230 foot telecommunication tower (please refer to the attached letter from the applicant to Eddie Kirk dated August 18, 1998), an equipment cabinet, and an area for future additional r . 2 telecommunication carriers. The tower will be a free standing lattice structure and light steel gray in color. The application proposes a type C 40-foot landscaped buffer around the facility with existing trees meeting the buffer requirement. The site is presently wooded and existing vegetation will only be disturbed to accommodate the tower and entrance road. There are no existing towers within one mile of this site on which the applicant could co-locate. An application from Spectrasite Communications, Inc. fora 199 foot telecommunications tower approximately 1.33 miles east of this site was denied by the Orange County Board of Adjustment on November 9, 1998. The application indicates this tower can structurally accommodate 5 users. Gearon has indicated they are willing to negotiate with other users to attach additional communication facilities provided they do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower. The facility will be unmanned; therefore, water and sewer facilities will not be required. Once constructed the tower will only be visited for scheduled maintenance and emergencies. August 24. 1998. Public Hearing The application was presented at a joint public hearing before the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on August 24, 1998. Minutes of that public hearing and items submitted as evidence are included in the binder provided. Planning Board Recommendation On October 13, 1998, the Planning Board, in a 5 to 2 vote, recommended denial of the Class A Special Use Permit for the following reasons: 1) photographs, as required by Article 8.8.17a.1 d.2.h, of aclearly-visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum height of the tower were not taken from property of residents that would be impacted by the use, so the visual impact of the proposed tower could not be assessed from the submitted photographs; and 2) the applicant failed to provide convincing evidence, as required by Article 8.2.1 2, that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The minutes of the Planning Board meeting on October 13, 1998, (continuation of the October 7, 1998, meeting) are included in the binder provided. The Public Hearing was resumed in the November 17, 1998, Board of County Commissioners meeting. Additional comments were heard from the applicants and those opposed. The Public Hearing was closed and the case was referred to the December 1, 1998, meeting for a decision. Draft minutes from the November 17, 1998, meeting aze included in the binder provided. 3 Because agenda for the December 1, 1998, Boazd of Commissioners meeting was so full and the complete record of the November 17, 1998, public hearing was not available at that time, Special Use Permit Application SU-02-98 was not placed on the December 1, 1998, agenda. Minutes of the November 17, 1998, meeting and supplementary materials presented at the hearing by the applicant became available only recently. The complete record of all proceedings concerning this application is included in the accompanying binder. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the Boazd of County Commissioners deny the Class A Special Use Permit per the Planning Boazd recommendation. Staff finds that the applicant has not carried its burden in proving that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Evidence presented at both public hearings, an Impact Investigation prepared by Joseph Smathers, Jr. and an Impact Study by Morgan & Company, Inc., do not provide convincing evidence. Specifically, those reports do not furnish information relating to the proximity (distance) from existing towers of properties used in the analyses nor compaze those distances with proximity of the proposed tower to properties on Greenfield Road. Those reports do not compare sales (market values) of the properties before construction of a tower with sales (mazket values) of the properties after construction of a tower; nor do those reports provide any comparison of properties within an area impacted by a tower with respect to sales of properties in closest proximity to the tower (or properties where the tower is most visible) with sales of properties farthest from the tower (or from which the tower is not very visible). Recent public hearings on Special Use Permits for telecommunication towers raise questions about the compatibility of such towers in residential neighborhoods. While the public hearings on Special Use Permits for telecommunication towers are evidentiary or quasi judicial hearings, the questions raised aze of a county legislative nature. The Boazd of County Commissioners may need to consider legislatively what the evidence needs to show. If the Board of County Commissioners does decide to find in the affirmative on the specific and general findings, the Planning Staff recommends the Special Use Permit be subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing and proposed vegetation shall be installed and/or maintained as indicated on the site plan. 2. The height of the tower shall not exceed 235 feet including the lightning appurtenance. 3. Security shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Attorney guaranteeing the removal of the tower in the event it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months. A cost estimate shall be provided by a qualified contractor. The amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the estimate. The form of security shall be approved before building permits are issued. 4. The factlily and its equipment shall comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements. 5. The electro-magnetic radiation levels shall maintain comp/lance with requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, regarding emission of electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on the tower, and within 30 days of the installation of any additional equipment in the future, the tower owner shall provide documentation of emission levels in relation to FCC standards. In addition, the tower owner must provide documentation of emission levels within five working days if so requested by Orange County. Orange County may make such requests at any time, nor to exceed four times per year. 6. The minor subdivision creating the proposed lot must be approved and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to recording of the Special Use Permit and prior to issuance of a building permit for the lower. 7. A fa// zone easement as indicated on the site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the County Attorney. This easement shall be recorded with the Special Use Permit. 8. /f any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit sha// be void in its entirety and of no effect. 5 ARTICLE 8 8 17a - TELECOMM iNlrnrlON TOWERS 1"Y " indicat nmQlianc~ "No" indicates Non nm of PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDIN ~S FINDINGS Ordinance Regl~iremanrc 8.8.17a.1 Additional Information a. A Site Plan showing site and size x Yes of all existing structures within 500 feet of the site, existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet and any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the presence of alluvial soils. No The site plan shows the structures along with topography. There are no floodways, floodplains or alluvial soils indicated on the plan. b. Plans, and elevations for all x Yes No proposed structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior material. c. A Landscape Plan showing, at the x Yes No same scale as the Site Plan, existing and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape materials. d. Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for locating the proposed facilities on an existing tower. Such evidence shall consist of: 1) A listing of all towers within a x Yes No '/:-mile (for towers shorter than 200 feet) or 1-mile (for towers 200 feet or taller) radius of the proposed tower site. 21 Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search range within which the tower equipment can function as intended. The following information shall be provided for all existing towers within the search range: fa) Tower height, as measured from Yes No the ground to the highest point x N/A of the support structure; (b) Existing and planned tower Yes No users; _x_N/A The application indicates there will be one equipment cabinet. The tower will be a light steel gray. A Site and Landscape Plan has been submitted. Existing vegetation will be maintained around the perimeter of the facility. There are no other telecommunication towers within 1 mile of this site. According to the application there are no towers within the search range. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No N/A Yes No N/A 6 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDIN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS (c) Whether the existing tower Yes No could accommodate the antenna _ x_N/A to be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural instability or radio frequency interference; and (d- If the proposed antenna cannot Yes No be accommodated on the x N/A existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas transmitters and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower; and 3) A summary explanation of why Yes No proposed facilities cannot be x N/A located on any of the existing towers in the search range. e. Documentation from applicable state x Yes No or federal agencies indicating requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower, such as lighting and coloring. f. Draft letter of credit which will x Yes No guarantee the removal of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months. g. A listing of all property owners within x Yes No 1000 feet of the parcel shall be provided. Each property owner shall be notified of the public hearing in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class B Special Use Permit) or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of this Ordinance. h. Photographs of aclearly-visible balloon Yes x No floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum height of the towers. Photographs shall be taken from locations such as: property lines, and/or nearby residential areas, historic sites, roadways, including scenic roads and major view corridors, and other locations as deemed necessary by the Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the proposed tower. Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A The Tower will be a light Yes No steel gray. The application indicated lighting will be as required by the FAA- white strobe at daytime and red blinking at night. A draft bond has been submitted and is being reviewed by the County Attorney. A condition of approval has been added regarding security for removal of the tower. A listing of property owners was provided and each property owner received notification. Yes No _Yes _No Balloon photographs _Yes No have been provided. 7 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS i. The Special Use Permit application shall _x_Yes No The application indicates Yes No include a statement that the facility compliance with all and its equipment will comply with all federal, state and local federal, state and local emission emission requirements. requirements. 8 8.8.17a.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application for approval: a. Adjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be equal to the height of the tower. The setback may be reduced to no less than one-half of the tower height if easements for the remaining setback distance are granted by adjoining property owners. b.Adjacent to non-residential uses or non-residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be the greater of 20% of the tower height, or the minimum required setback. c. A Type C Landscape Buffer shall be provided between the tower and adjoining property. Existing vegetation may be removed only to the extent necessary to accommodate the tower, equipment buildings, and support structures such as guy wires. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS _x_Yes No N/A _x_Yes No N/A _x_Yes No d.The site plan shall indicate a location x Yes for at least one equipment building in addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. e. Security fencing is provided around the x Yes perimeter of the site. The telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing tower due to one or more of the following reasons: No No The planned equipment would Yes No exceed the structural capacity _ x_N/A of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers and the towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The site plan indicates the closest property line is 250 feet from the tower. The tower is proposed to be 230 feet in height. The tower is 250 feet from the quarry property. A Type C Landscape Buffer will be provided around the base of the tower facility. Existing vegetation will only be disturbed to accommodate the tower and entrance road. The site plan indicates an area reserved for co-location. An 7 foot chain link security fence is indicated around the site. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS _Yes No N/A _Yes No N/A Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No N/A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 2. The planned equipment would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or planned equipment for these towers, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. Yes No _ x_N/A 3. Existing or approved towers do Yes No not have space on which the x N/A equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and reasonably in parity with similar existing or approved equipment. 4. No tower or other suitable facility x Yes No exists in an area where the equipment to be placed on the tower will function in its intended manner. g-The Communications tower is _x_Yes structurally designed to support at least one additional user, and the Special Use Permit includes a statement that owner of the tower is willing to permit other user(s) to attach communication facilities which do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower, provided that such other users agree to negotiate a reasonable compensation to the owner from such liability as may result from such attachment. h) The color of the tower is of light tone, _x~Yes except to the extent required by law, so as to minimize its visual impact. i) The towers will not be artificially _x~Yes lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other federal or state agency. Where such agencies allow a choice between painting the tower or installing strobe lighting, painting shalt be the preferred choice. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The application indicates there are no other towers or facilities available. 9 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A No The application indicates the tower will structurally be able to accommodate additional users. No The application indicates the tower will be a light steel gray. No The application indicates the tower will be lit as required by the FAA- with white strobe during the day and red blinking at night. j) The tower and antenna will not result _x,Yes No in a significant adverse impact on the N/A view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor. Yes No Yes No Yes No The application indicates the Yes No tower and antenna will not N/A result in a significant adverse impact on the view of or from any historic site, scenic road or major view corridor. There are existing trees around the proposed site. 10 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS kl All abandoned communication towers x Yes shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of use. A bond or other security guaranteeing the removal of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months shall be posted. A cost estimate shall be provided by a qualified contractor. The amount of the security shall be 1 10 percent of the estimate. No A draft bond has been submitted. A condition of approval has been added regarding security for removal of the tower. A determination shall be made that x Yes the facility and its equipment will comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements, and the Special Use Permit shall include a statement that the facility and its equipment will comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements. m-The Special Use Permit shall include x Yes a condition that the electro-magnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, regarding emission of electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on the tower, and within 30 days of the installation of any additional equipment in the future, the tower owner shall provide documentation of emission levels in relation to FCC standards. In addition, the tower owner must provide documentation of emission levels within five working days if so requested by Orange County. Orange County may make such requests at any time, not to exceed four times per year. No The application indicates compliance with all federal, state and local emission requirements. A statement to this effect will be included with the Special Use Permit. No A condition of approval has been added that the electro- magnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with requirements of the Federal Communications Commision regarding emission of electro- magnetic radition. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS Yes No Yes Yes No No 11 nRTici F R-7.1 & 8.2.2 -APPLICATION COMPONENTS ~"Will" indicates comnliance• "Will Not" indicates Non-compliance) ("Is") ("Is Not") Ordinance Requirements In accordance with Article 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for Special Use shall be approved: Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Article 8.2.1 The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property-. Article 8.2.1 3. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, wilt be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS __~._Will_Will Not The applicant indicated this _WiII~WiIt Not will provide continuous wireless service for residences and businesses. It will also provide wireless service for 91 1 and emergency needs. - _WilllX`Will Not Joseph Smathers, a real estate _Will_Will Not appraiser, submitted a report and testified that the tower will not impact the value of surrounding properties. Several property owners disagreed with Mr. Smathers conclusions. GIs _Is Not The applicant indicated the tower ^Is _Is Not is located next to the stone quarry and that the site is heavily wooded. The tower is permitted in this zoning district with approval of a Special Use Permit. The Comprehensive Plan does not speak to Cellular Towers.