HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2004-019 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Wireless Element of the Master Telecommunication Plan135
ORANGE COUNTY i -,;7 Od <./ d r
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
and
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 24, 2004
Action Agenda
Item No. 0.1
SUBJECT: Wireless Element of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT (S):
• Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments
• MTP text and maps, which includes:
✓ An -inventory of existing cell tower
sites,
✓ Environmental and Cultural
Constraints
✓ Available Sites, and
✓ A timeline of relevant meetings and
hearings
• May 27, 2003 and November 25, 2002
Public Hearing minutes
• Copies of letters sent to MTP
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
stakeholders
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig N. Benedict, Director, ext 2592
Glenn Bowles, Planner II, ext 2577
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Durham 688 -7331
Mebane 336 - 227 -2031
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the proposed Wireless Element of the Master.
Telecommunications Plan (MTP).
BACKGROUND: This is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to
Article 6.18 and Article 8.8, and specifically Article 6.18.5, entitled "Master Telecommunications
Plan ", and Article 8.8.17a, entitled "Telecommunications Towers ", to allow for the adoption of a
"Master Telecommunications Plan" Map ( "MTP ") that will identify sites within the County where
Telecommunication Tower facilities already exist and also pre - identified properties (Pre -
identified Properties ") whose owners have expressed an interest in locating Telecommunication
Towers in the future, subject to all Orange County Zoning Ordinance requirements. Properties
identified on the MTP may include those related to fire stations, voluntary agricultural districts,
public and private utility authorities, State and, County owned properties, privately owned
properties, etc.
As with any other proposed telecommunications tower facility, an application to site a tower
facility on Pre - identified Property on the MTP may be approved only upon the issuance of a
Special Use Permit and after meeting all other Orange County Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Provided the initial MTP plan is adopted, the County will consider additions or modifications to
the MTP annually at the February Public Hearing each year. Applications to add to, withdraw
136 2
from or otherwise modify the MTP shall be filed with the Zoning Officer prior to December 15th
of each year.
The purpose of the MTP is to identify properties within the County where wireless
telecommunications providers are encouraged to research prior to submittal of an application to
site a new wireless telecommunications facility. The MTP will help identify existing locations
suitable for co- location including locations that may also serve the public safety
telecommunications network.
Recent amendments to Section 6.18 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides a "place
holder" for the adoption of an MTP should the Board of County Commissioners desire to adopt
the plan. If the County declines to adopt the MTP, the present zoning ordinance standards for
telecommunication towers can still function, but without the availability of the MTP to serve as a
reference tool to identify potential locations for co- located wireless telecommunication facilities
including locations that may serve or may be required to serve the public safety
telecommunication network.
The MTP also identifies culturally and environmentally sensitive areas, including habitats and
corridors that may support migratory or native species of birds and other wildlife. The MTP
contains specific information concerning the mitigation of potential dangers to migratory birds.
Starting in March of 2002, the MTP was the subject of several departmental meetings to
determine if there were any properties suitable as tower sites. Initial efforts focused on
compiling base map information within Orange County. GIS map overlays were subsequently
prepared to identify many features.
Using one and two -mile buffers around the existing tower sites and one -mile buffers around
private utility transmission lines, possible antenna co- location sites were plotted. The displayed
buffer areas also helped identify areas in the County where communications facilities may not
exist. Properties listed above, which are located within the wireless communication service
gaps, were noted to be acceptable sites for future tower sites.
Staff invited potential wireless telecommunication tower stakeholders to discuss possible issues
for the MTP and to gauge interest in such a plan. Four such meetings were held from August
2002 to April 2003. A listing of stakeholders involved with the MTP process is provided. In May
2003, the former Director of Emergency Management, met with the local Fire Chiefs at which
time the MTP was discussed and all expressed interest in getting involved with the MTP. The
attached timeline charts key public hearings, stakeholder meetings, separate departmental
meetings, and county correspondence regarding the MTP process since March 2002.
The MTP contains the following items:
1. Xtimeline of related departmental staff efforts to involve other departments and the
public in the MTP planning process.
2. Inventories of existing telecommunication towers within and immediately surrounding
Orange County.
3. MTP Goals, policy, and action statements.
4. Cell Tower Sites in Orange County.
5. A map illustrating environmental and cultural constraints.
6. A map illustrating available sites.
7. The Emergency Management service map.
137
8. Analysis regarding migratory bird mortality due to telecommunication towers.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time with human resources being used from
existing department staffs. Eventually, the use of the MTP could provide financial and public
benefits. Department involvement would eventually include, but not be limited to Planning and
Inspections Department, EMS, Information Services, Purchasing, Public Works, Environmental
and Resource Conservation, and Parks and Recreation.
RECOMMENDATION (S): The Planning Department staff recommends approval of the
attached ordinance and that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August
17, 2004.
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 17,
2004.
139
ORDINANCE TO PUBLIC HEARING
May 24, 2004
Bold = New Language
Proposed Deleted Language
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North
Carolina, that the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Amend Section 8.8.17a.2 a). (Page 8 -24) to add new language to
read as follows: -
1. On existing towers or other structures;
2. On utility poles;
3. On industrially- or commercially -zoned properties;
4. On agricultural land;
5. On a stealth facility;
6. At another location not identified above as priority 1, 2, 3, er 4,
or 5.
Section 2. Amend Section 6.18.5. (Page 6 -25 -n) to revise the existing
language to read as follows:
The Plan wi4 assists providers in their search for suitable locations
to build their service network. The County may has developed the
Plan, with accompanying (maps� and appendices, which would
display locations within the County's jurisdiction where property
owners have expressed interest in allowing construction of
telecommunications equipment. Information that maybe is shown
on the base Plan wilt includes: existing towers, tower sites in
neighboring counties, two -mile buffer around each tower,
major electric power transmission lines, County- defined Natural
Areas, historic properties, properties with archaeological
potential, scenic corridors, tower - related bird mortality
information, ,
Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and publicly -owned or quasi - public
lands. In all cases, an interest in allowing the placement of
telecommunication equipment on the property /properties shall have
been expressed in writing. In order to participate in the MTP all
owner(s), or their legally binding representatives, shall submit an
application on a form prepared by the Planning Department and
meet the following guidelines:
a) Information to be provided. All telecommunication
providers who elect to construct facilities on properties in
the Plan shall provide all necessary and requested
140
information to the County's telecommunication
consultant.
b) Plan modification. After adoption of the initial Plan any
subsequent modification of the Plan may 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
1St of each year. The foe fer modifying he Plan shall be
that 0o set forth in the GFange GO U7Rty Sashed le of Fees.
c) Withdrawal from the Plan. Withdrawal from the Plan is
permitted if any owner submits, to the Planning Director,
a notarized statement requesting withdrawal from the
Plan.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be placed in the file of published ordinances.
Section 4. This Ordinance is effective upon adoption.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that this Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Zoning
Ordinance of Orange County" is adopted.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
adopted this day of
seconded by
the foregoing Ordinance was
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk of the Board of Commissioners for the County of
Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy
of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on
, 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the
foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
.2004.
Clerk of the Board of Commissioners
141
Orange County, North Carolina
WIRELESS ELEMENT
OF THE
MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN (MTP)
I. INTRODUCTION
What is the MTP
The MTP identifies existing and potential future wireless telecommunication sites and
structures, addresses a number of related siting issues in an organized and systematic
manner and serves as an informational tool for implementation of the Zoning Ordinance
(hereafter "Ordinance" or "Zoning Ordinance ").
The Ordinance provides a "placeholder" to allow Orange County to adopt an MTP,
should it desire to do so through the public hearing process. Even if the MTP is
approved, wireless tower applicants may apply to locate a facility on properties identified
in the MTP only after obtaining a special use permit and meeting all other Zoning
Ordinance and building code requirements.
Planning Processes
Starting in March of 2002, the MTP was the subject of several departmental meetings to
determine if there were any properties suitable as tower sites. Initial efforts focused on
compiling base map information within Orange County, which identified:
1. Tax parcels,
2. Road networks,
3. Bodies of water,
4. Township boundaries, and
5. Watershed areas where commercial uses are not permitted.
GIS map overlays were subsequently prepared to identify the following features:
1. Duke Power transmission lines and properties,
2. Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation transmission lines and properties,
3. Duke Forest properties,
4. Eno River State Park properties,
5. Orange County School District properties,
6. Orange Water and Sewer Authority properties,
7. Fire stations,
8. County -owned properties,
9. Semi - public properties, (i.e., churches and community center),
10. Existing telecommunication towers, and
11. Volunteer Agriculture District properties.
Staff invited potential telecommunication tower stakeholders to discuss possible issues
for the MTP and to gauge interest in such a plan. Four such meetings were held from
August 2002 to January 2003. A listing of stakeholders involved with the MTP process
1
142
is provided in Appendix E. The timeline shown on Page 3 charts key public hearings,
stakeholder meetings, separate departmental meetings and county correspondence
regarding the MTP process since March 2002.
Why Do the Plan?
Within the County are important natural and cultural resources that telecommunication
facilities may negatively and irreparably impact. Planners can use the County
Environmental Impact Ordinance to identify such resources after the fact during the
review of an application for a telecommunication tower special use permit; or the
planning staff can give landowners, the general public and telecommunication industry
representatives MTP information in advance of the application process that will guide
and influence the potential siting of communication facilities.
The MTP will help identify public lands not appropriate for tower sites. Such public
lands may include Orange County Nature Preserves, the Little River Regional Park, New
Hope Park, Lake Orange, and the Eno River State Park. Other public and private lands
are identified that may also be inappropriate as tower sites, such as natural areas and
wildlife corridors, lands under conservation easements, prime forest and agricultural
lands, cultural and historic sites and lands adjoining scenic corridors.
The MTP includes existing towers, tower sites in neighboring counties, two -mile buffer
around each tower, major electric power transmission lines, County - defined Natural
Areas, historic properties, properties with archaeological potential, scenic corridors,
known bird migration patterns through the County, Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and
publicly -owned or quasi - public lands. The MTP contains specific information
concerning the mitigation of potential dangers to migratory birds.
However, there are a number of public and private lands identified in the MTP that could
make acceptable tower sites, such as fire halls, community centers, OWASA properties,
certain county parks and possibly some school sites, together with private lands in certain
portions of Duke Forest and voluntary agricultural districts represent possible future sites
for collocated telecommunication facilities.
Using two -mile buffers around the existing tower sites,'and by locating major electric
power transmission lines, possible antenna co- location sites are plotted in the MTP. The
displayed buffer areas also help identify regions of the County where communications
facilities may not exist.
The purpose of the MTP is to identify properties within the County where wireless
telecommunications providers are encouraged to research prior to submittal of an
2
MTP Process Timeline
2004
2002
2003
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
5
O
N
D
J
F
Telecommunication Tower Moritorium
Phase 1 County Communications Plan
New MTP
Zoning
Ord.
;k �c
Meetings
1
71c
_•_
k
yr ... C# ,!. r..
:... ...gin .. ..er '. .s+., .. :.. .._, ,,... ,t
_ _
Pronet
ERCD Cell
MTP
ATPM
Solicitation
ATPM
meeting in
Listing Tower
Zoning
Letters of TC
Raleigh
Proposed Map
Ordinance
Consulting
Revisions
Services
Adopted
Formal letters to
Stakeholders to be
Included in the MTP
N
EP
W ii V
application to site a new wireless telecommunications facility. To encourage prospective
telecommunication service providers to consider the placement of towers within
voluntary agricultural districts, including those identified in the MTP, the text of Section
8.8.17a.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is to be amended to include voluntary agricultural
districts as preferred priority four (4), and to reprioritize former priority four (4) and five
(5) to priority five (5) and six (6), respectively. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance an
application to site a communications facility may not be approved unless it demonstrates
that the telecommunication equipment may not be sited at a higher priority site because
of commercial impracticability or because no higher priority site is available. The MTP
will also help identify existing locations suitable for collocation including locations that
may also serve the public safety telecommunication network.
Another aspect of the MTP strikes a balance between the needs and concerns of the
general public and those of the telecommunication industry. Citizens have expressed
concerns regarding property values, aesthetics, safety and the environmental concerns
related to proposed tower facilities. Yet, with the changing wireless communications
technology and public demand for wireless services, a real need to provide wireless
communication services exists.
The MTP is an informational tool to assist with the reasonableness, orderliness and
rationality of the decision regarding the placement of wireless telecommunication towers,
accompanying equipment and infrastructure. Its objective is that Orange County citizens
benefit from an improved wireless infrastructure and service without sacrificing the
character of the rural community.
End Products
The MTP process will result in:
• A plan document, with accompanying data and illustrations,
• Both text and maps will be posted on the Orange County website, for better
communications opportunities with the interested public and those seeking to
expand the wireless network,
• Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the MTP reference tool into the
Ordinance.
II. PLANNING CONTEXT
Public Involvement
Land owners and county, school, telecommunication industry and semi - public facility
representatives were informed by letter and phone to attend and participate in the process
of planning and preparing the MTP. Facilities in other Orange County communities are
part of this plan, but like Chapel Hill, the municipalities may have their own policies and
ordinances to address issues related to the siting of telecommunication towers. Appendix
F summarizes the Chapel Hill policies on telecommunication towers.
4
145
Coordination with County Departments
The infrastructure associated with wireless telecommunication facilities is inherently
essential to the efficient operation of a number of County departments. Emergency
Medical Services needs to maintain quality wireless service throughout the County. The
Sheriff's and fire departments have similar needs. Information Systems also desires to
provide quality communication -based technology services, a goal shared by other public
agencies in and around Orange County. The MTP provides valuable information
concerning the present state and future needs of emergency and other communications
networks of public concern.
Establish MTP Goals, Policy, and Applicable Action Steps
The plan will:
• Identify public, private and semi - public properties for the overall public benefit
that may be suitable for telecommunication facility sites
• Develop cooperation with telecommunication facility stakeholders to encourage
collocation.
Limit the number of future tower sites by identifying available sites for
communications facilities.
Policy Statement. The County supports the conservative application of improved
wireless communication technologies within its boundaries. While retaining and
enhancing its local zoning authority and its sensitivity to community concerns, the
County provides public and private property owners, communications service providers
and other interested citizens and parties with information that may help guide the proper
siting of communications facilities and meet Zoning Ordinance standards that are
designed to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare of County residents.
Applicable Action Steps.
• Continue to schedule an annual meeting of wireless communication providers to
discuss and identify the location_ of existing and possible future collocated
communications facilities.
• Maintain an inventory of existing towers, utility poles and other suitable
structures, antennas and co- locations.
• Determine, with respect to existing MTP sites, whether zoning compliance exists,
whether all applicable permits and leases have been obtained from the service
providers in the County and whether the permits remain current.
• Explore opportunities to research and include within the MTP information
concerning areas and issues of cultural and environmental concern.
• Receive and process applications from public and private property owners for
inclusion or removal from the MTP of properties that may serve as potential sites
for collocated telecommunication facilities.
5
146
M. PLAN ELEMENTS
Inventory
In Orange County and the four incorporated towns there are presently 67 known
telecommunication tower sites, and local governments continue to receive permission to
locate additional towers. The average tower height is 222 feet with a range between 60
and 1,144 feet. (Appendix C provides a summary of each tower site.) As of November
1998 within North Carolina, four percent of the 1,663 telecommunication towers were at
least 800 feet high, five per cent were between 500 and 800 feet tall, nearly half were
between 300 and 500 feet, and 42 per cent were under 300 feet tall. Thirteen of the
telecommunication towers in Orange County are over 200 feet in height. All but three `
towers over 200 feet are guyed. From these figures and mortality studies conducted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, since 1986 the number of bird deaths attributed to
telecommunication towers in Orange County is estimated to range from 230,000 to
320,000 birds, or about 13,000 annually. However, no one has conducted local studies to
confirm these mortality estimates.
Guyed towers were all constructed before 1992 and all but one of the monopole towers
were built after 1995. At least twenty of the towers have co- located antenna arrays.
Since January 2003 there has been only one building permit for a new tower facility
issued, while sixteen permits were issued for co- located facilities. Thus, except for
towers on electric power poles or poles mounted on a municipal water tower, all towers
constructed after 1995 were monopole or lattice -tower construction, due to technology
demands and new federal regulations.
Figure 1 charts the 67 known tower sites listed in Table 1, including five, which have
been permitted, but not constructed or removed. Also listed in Figure 2 are towers in
other adjoining counties, which may affect wireless coverage within Orange County.
Table 1. Telecommunication Facilities within Orange County, 2004.
2
Township
Constructed
(in feet) Construction
Number
Jurisdiction
City/
Year
Height Type of
Owner
Case
1
Little River
Township
1990
737 Guyed
* Alltel
2
Little River
Township
1990
290 Guyed
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -3 -94
4
Hillsborough
Township
1996
157 Guyed
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -11 -93
5
Hillsborough
City
178 Monopole
* Crown Castle Atlantic
6
Cheeks
Township
1989
400 Guyed
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -8 -89
7
Cheeks
Township
1995
200 Guyed
Sprint PCS
A -8 -95
8
Bingham
Township
1992
300 Guyed
Sprint PCS
A -3 -92
9
Chapel Hill
Township
1992
300 Guyed
Sprint PCS
A -2 -92
10
Chapel Hill
City
2002
Water Tower
Sprint PCS
11
Chapel Hill
Carrboro
1985
220 Lattice
* Crown. Castle Atlantic
SUP- B -3 -85
12
Chapel Hill
City
2002
Rooftop
GTE Wireless
13
Chapel Hill
Carrboro
180 Monopole
Sprint PCS
14
Bingham
Township
1984
1,144 Guyed
* Clear Channel
SUP- B -3 -84
15
Chapel Hill
Township
1995
195 Monopole
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -1 -95
16
Cheeks
Township
1995
375 Guyed
* Spectra Site
A -2 -95
2
147
17
Cheeks
Township
1996
230 Lattice
* 360 Communications
A -6 -96
18
Hillsborough
Township
1996
160 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
A -1 -96
19
Eno
Township
2000
160 Monopole
* Bell South
A -3 -96
20
Eno
Township
1996
135 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
A -5 -96
21
Chapel Hill
Township
1996
250 Lattice
* Spectra Site
A -9 -96
22
Chapel Hill
Township
1996
197 Monopole
360 Communications
A -12 -96
23
Eno
Township
1998
180 Monopole
Sprint PCS
A -6 -97
24
Eno
Township
1990
100 Guyed
Elmo Yancey
A -4 -90
25
Cedar Grove
Township
170 Lattice
EMS
26
Hillsborough
City
120 Lattice
EMS
27
Chapel Hill
City
Electrical Pole
28
Chapel Hill
City
< 100 Guyed
29
Chapel Hill
City
<60 Monopole
30
Chapel Hill
City
Lattice
31
Chapel Hill
Carrboro
1984
60 Water Tower
Alert Cable
SUP- B -1 -84
32
Hillsborough
Township
1984
150 Lattice
Piedmont Electric
SUP- B -2 -84
33
Hillsborough
Township
1982
160 Guyed
Duke University
app- 12 -6 -82
34
Chapel Hill
Carrboro
1995
176 Monopole
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -4 -95
35
Chapel Hill
Carrboro
151 Monopole
*Town of Carrboro
36
Hillsborough
City
1994
225 Guyed
* Durham FM Club, Inc
A -9 -94
37
Cheeks
Township
1999
199 Monopole
Spectra Site
A -5 -97
38
Eno
Township
170 Water Tower
A, T & T Wireless
39
Chapel Hill
Township
1999
199 Water Tower
Spectra Site
A -6 -98
40
Bingham
Township
1999
190 Monopole
* SBA, Inc.
A -3 -99
41
Bingham
Township
2000
190 Monopole
* SBA, Inc.
A -1 -00
42
Chapel Hill
Township
2000
178 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
A -2 -00
43
Chapel Hill
Township
2001
150 Monopole
Nextel, Inc.
A -3 -00
44
Eno
Township
2000
190 Monopole
* Crown Castle Atlantic
A -5 -00
46
Little River
Township
2001
190 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
A -5 -01
47
Cedar Grove
Township
2001
195 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
A -6 -01
48
Chapel Hill
Township
177 Lattice
American Tower
49
Chapel Hill
Township
240 Lattice
Duke Energy
50
Hillsborough
City
1999
190 Monopole
* American Tower
51
Hillsborough
City
2002
190 Monopole
*Sprint PCS
53
Chapel Hill
UNC
Lattice
54
Chapel Hill
UNC
Water Tower
55
Chapel Hill
City
2002
80 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
56
Chapel Hill
City
2002
80 Monopole
Crown Castle Atlantic
57
Bingham
Township
1985.
785 Guyed
Vilcom
SUP -4 -84
58
Chapel Hill
City
Guyed
59
Chapel Hill
City
Electrical Pole
60
Cedar Grove
Township
Guyed
61
Chapel Hill
Township
Monopole
62
Eno
Township
2003
Electrical Pole
63
Mebane
City
Water Tower
64
Cedar Grove
Township
Lattice
7
173 " Co- location Tower
Table 2. Telecommunication Facilities within Two Miles of Orange County.
Count
Road Intersection
Latitude
'Longitude
1
Alamance
Thom @ Saxpahaw
36 056'54.2 "N
79 016'36.4 "W
2
Alamance
Marys Grove @ Mt. Willen
36 000'10.0 "N
79 016'45.4 "W
3
Alamance
City Hall
36 005'15.5 "N
79 016'08.9 "W
4
Durham
Bivins @ County Line
36 006'48.8 "N
78058'16.6W
5
Durham
Chambers @ Bacon
36 013'27.7 "N
78 056'21.12 "W
6
Durham
east of Pearson @Rougemont
36 008'50.8 "N
78 056'04.1 "W
7
Durham
between US 70 & 185
36002'1 1.5"N
78 058'02.8 "W
8
j Durham
north of 185, west of Cole Mill
36 002'06.1 "N
78 057'52.3 "W
9
Durham
north of 185, west of Cole Mill
36 002'03.6 "N
78 057'46.2 "W
10
Durham
north of 185, west of Cole Mill
36 002'01.6 "N
78 057'39.7 "W
11
Durham
185 @ NC 157
36 001'35.9 "N
78 057'29.0 "W
12
Durham
Cole Mill @ Reservoir
36 002'22.7 "N
78 057'36.8 "W
13
Durham
Cornwallis @ 15/501
35 059'05.6 "N
78 057'42.2 "W
14
Durham
15 /501 @ University
35 058'06.5 "N
78 057'58.4 "W
15
Durham
Mt. Moriah @ County Line
35 059'38.2 "N
78 057'49.9 "W
16
Durham
Fearing ton east of Morgan Creek
35 052'02 "N
78 059'55 "W
17
Chatham
Edwards Mt. North of Lystra
Road
35 050'56 "N
79 002'59 "W
18
Chatham
151501 @ commercial center
35 050'45 "N
79 005'21 "W
19
Chatham
15 /501 north of Lystra Road
35 050'26 "N
79 005'29 "W
149
Guidelines to Identify Optimal Tower Sites within Orange County.
The MTP will identify areas of environmental and cultural concern to discourage
improper siting of telecommunication facilities. To complement the required FCC -NEPA
regulatory process, Orange County will identify the following natural or cultural features:
Mapped Feature
Page Number within the Land Use
Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan
Scenic Road Corridors
2.2 -56
Historic Sites
2.2-46
Archaeological Remains Potential
2.2 -51
Wildlife Corridors
2.2 -43
Natural Areas / Wildlife Habitats
2.2 -34
Wetlands
2.2 -15
Flood lain and Stream Buffers
2.2 -10
Properties under recorded conservation
easements
Prime Farmland
2.2 -19
As these documents are modified over time, when the BOCC officially modify their
content, the natural or cultural feature maps are automatically revised for their application
to the MTP — Wireless Element. Figure 2 depicts these natural and cultural features.
By avoiding these natural or cultural features, telecommunication tower developers can
document their attempt to minimize visual impacts and potential negative environmental
consequences that towers may create.
Preferred Tower Sites. The MTP will identify lands within the County Zoning
jurisdiction that:
1. Are industrially- or commercially- zoned,
2. Are forested, and
3. Are sites still under consideration as telecommunication sites. (Please refer to the
list in Appendix A.)
Identifying these lands in the MTP will assist with prioritizing the preferred location for
potential telecommunication sites . Figure 3 illustrates some of the preferred locations for
potential tower sites within Orange County.
Emergency Management Services Cellular Coverage. The on -going County
Communications Plan provides information helpful to locating gaps or poor coverage
within Orange County in the emergency management communications network. Figure 4
shows the present deficiencies within Orange County. In combination with Figures 1, 2,
and 3, Figure 4 supplements a factual, objective basis for cell tower siting decisions that
may serve the citizens of Orange County by enhancing the emergency management
communications network.
x
n.
h our
tg
aN
Ace �Aiz:%Y.Zvi
Mf
map
LLI
C4
Z6,
LU
W iv
own d.
t, WNW
QQQ
so
FF
151
Bird Mortality Standards for Telecommunication Towers
Within the continental United States scientists have inventoried some 836 migratory bird
species. The vast majority (778) of these are non -game species; the balance is legally
hunted. Over 350 species are vulnerable to tower collisions, according to United States
Fish and Wildlife Department experts. The nature of their vulnerability is presented
below in the Issues section.
Conservative estimates nationally put annual bird deaths resulting directly from collisions
with towers, guy wires, or the ground at four to five million. Migrating birds are also
vulnerable to wind generator turbines, overhead power lines, glass windows, oil spills
and other pollution sources, aircraft, vehicles, electrocution, predation, pesticides, and a
general loss of habitat.
To put the four to five million tower kills in perspective and according to Audubon
Society estimates, 10,000 to 40,000 birds die annually from collisions with wind turbines,
sixty to eighty million collide with motor vehicles, and 98 million died after flying into
plate glass windows.
Appendix B lists monthly frequency of over 330 bird species, which have been counted
in the Orange County area in 2002, as compiled by the Chapel Hill Bird Club. Appendix
B illustrates the trends in numbers of nearly 100 of the most common species observed in
Orange County from 1999 through 2003. Most of the local bird species are migratory
and are susceptible to the effects of telecommunication towers. Some of the more well
known bird observation sites include the Bolin Creek Greenway, Cane Creek Reservoir,
Dairyland Road, Few's Ford Access in the Eno River State Park, along the Eno River at
Pleasant Green Road, Lake Orange, the Mason Farm, and University Lake.
Of the 227 species of Neotropical migratory birds listed in documented
telecommunication tower bird kills, all but 28 are listed in the Chapel Hill Bird Club's
inventory. Species found within Orange County represent 88% of all species
documented in the tower kills, and over 97% of the total birds listed. Most of the
Neotropical migratory birds of North America migrate through Orange County or are
commonly found within the area.
Issues. Along major bird migration routes, a single telecommunication tower may
account for as many as 3,000 annual migratory songbird deaths, according to recent
studies. Documented single bird death events range as high as 12,000 fatalities. If
animal scavenging is considered, these figures could be even higher.
Three factors influence bird tower mortality. First, lit towers over 200 feet in height
attract migrating birds, particularly if the structure uses red strobe warning lights with a
short, regular pulsing rate. Secondly, electromagnetic towers emit energy in the
microwave spectrum, which may disrupt migrating bird's ability to navigate at night, by
creating force fields and resonating with avian magnetite, the bird's internal navigation
system. There may be a trade off between lesser tower heights, which increase human
exposure to electromagnetic radiation, and greater tower heights, which increase
11
152
migratory bird exposures. Finally, the towers pose a physical obstacle in which birds can
become entangled or into which they may collide.
Vulnerable migratory species breed during the spring and summer in North America and
migrate to the southern states, the Caribbean, or Central and South America during the
fall and winter. They generally fly at night and are most susceptible to tower collisions
during misty, foggy, rainy, or low -cloud atmospheric conditions. During these inclement
weather conditions, migratory birds seem to switch from their innate, nighttime
navigational abilities to visual reckoning. They can become attracted, more accurately,
they are reluctant to leave the lit area of red, pulsing navigational strobe lights, continue
to fly around the lit tower, and often collide with or become entangled with the tower and
tower guy wires.
Migration occurs over a broad front in May and September- October across the Triangle
region. Orange County does not seem to have a significant migratory flight pattern. Most
species migrate fairly evenly across the county and can stop over wherever there are
woods, according to local experts.
Options. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service strongly encourages
telecommunication towers to:
1. Collocate on existing structures;
2. Keep telecommunication tower height under 200 feet, so that it can be unguyed, and
unlit;
3. Consider the cumulative and individual impacts of each tower;
4. If collocation is not possible, consider locations in existing "antenna farms;"
5. For towers over 200 feet high, install white, up- shielded, night lighting with a
minimum number of lights, minimum intensity, and minimum flashing rates, under
FCC telecommunication tower regulations;
6. For guyed towers, use daytime, visual bird diverter devices;
7. Locate towers away from wildlife habitat, wetlands, or natural resource corridors,
and minimize natural habitat disruption;
8. Locate proposed sites away from known avian habitat areas,
9. Accommodate at least two additional antenna arrays on each new tower;
10. Require all lighting and equipment to be. shielded and buffered with natural
vegetation;
11. Coordinate with local researchers to conduct migratory bird mortality studies to gain
better information on the impacts of different tower height, configuration and
lighting systems; and
12. Provide legal mechanisms to remove towers no longer in use or when determined to
be obsolete.
It does not appear that any area of Orange County is more susceptible to foggy and low
visibility conditions than others, except for wetlands and riverine corridors.
12
153
The Zoning Ordinance requires that abandoned, derelict, or unused towers be removed. It
requires collocation and collocation capacity of a minimum of two antenna arrays for
monopole towers and three antenna arrays for self - support/lattice or guyed towers.
Applications for towers greater than 150 feet in height must be approved through a Class
A Special Use Permit process. The Ordinance also requires that towers not be artificially
lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other federal or state agency. The Ordinance
mandates that the tower siting application show that the equipment planned for a
proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing facility. It includes preferences
for the siting of telecommunications equipment on existing towers or utility poles. There
are two existing antenna farms in the County, but new antenna farms are discouraged.
New monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers are not permitted within 1/2
mile of any existing tower, unless justification is provided.
Pursuant to the Ordinance, an applicant may be required to submit an Environmental
Impact Assessment and "all applications [must] contain a demonstration that the tower is
sited so as to have the least visually intrusive effect reasonably possible and thereby have
the least adverse visual effect on the environment and its character, on existing
vegetation, and on the residences in the area of the telecommunications tower." If the
Board of County Commissioners so directs, text amendments may be considered in the
future to adopt additional substantive requirements to further address these environmental
issues as they relate to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Use of The Master Telecommunication Plan Map
The four plan figures and text will be imported onto the Orange County Website so that
industry representatives who are looking for potential tower sites and the public have
direct access to these public documents. The map illustrates factors that may impact the
suitability of proposed telecommunication tower locations, by:
1. Identifying sites with the potential to contain archaeological artifacts and if the
site were pursued, a more detailed study would be required.
2. Identifying sites not containing prime agricultural lands. Orange County prime
agricultural soils typically have small areas. Few prime soils completely cover an entire
parcel. Specific tower sites on selected parcels could be shifted internally to avoid
removing prime soils from farm production.
3. Identifying scenic road corridors. Selected parcels, which abut scenic road
corridors or abut parcels along such corridors, must describe how the tower facility will
not degrade the rural, scenic qualities of the road corridor.
4. Identifying all existing tower facilities and each tower's two -mile buffer. Any
tower proposal located within such tower buffer must provide additional justification for
the location.
5. Identifying other obvious natural features that may not be good tower
locations, such as wetlands, floodways and flood fringe areas, natural areas /wildlife
habitats and corridors, and permanent conservation easements.
Within the land area remaining, this protocol locates:
1. Parcels still under consideration as tower sites,
2. Parcels zoned commercially or industrially,
13
154
3. Voluntary agriculture districts,
4. Electrical power line towers for possible co- location opportunities,
5. Forested parcels, and
6. Areas identified as lacking adequate cellular service.
IV. RECOMN ENDATIONS
The MTP maps should be adopted and features shown on the maps and supplementary
documentation should be used to guide future tower siting decisions.
14
155
APPENDICES
A. List of Enrolled Properties
B. Listing of Birds Observed in Orange County (1999 to 2003)
C. Chapel Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency Check of Birds in Orange County
D. Tower Facility Inventory
E. Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder List
F. Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies
15
156
TNT)TVTDT T A TES /PERSON
Quarterly Public Hearing
May 27, 2003
INDICATING DESIRE TO
P A R T W IPATE IN THE ORANGE
LINTY MASTER
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN
ITEM: CA
TYPE OF PROPERTY
Semi - /Quasi - Public
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Public Utility
School Property
N
(Letter of Interest Signed & Returned)
NAME
TAX MAP #
ADDRESS
Efland Ruritan Club
3.39.A.2A
3100 Forrest Ave.
Efland, NC
Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Co.
6.14..513
6800 Orange Grove Rd.
Hillsborough, NC
White Cross Volunteer Fire Dept.
6.39..413
5722 Old Greensboro Rd
Chapel Hill, NC
Orange Rural Fire Dept. #1
2. 46..17L
835 Phelps Rd.
Hillsborough, NC
Duke Energy Corporation
3.31.13.26
No Adddress
5.25..1
6.2..33
6.35..28
6.7..17
7.2..15
7.3..2
Orange County Board of Education
72.3
Cameron Street
72.41-1
Hillsborough, NC
7.9..15
3.31.A.22
3.32.A.1
ITEM: CA
TYPE OF PROPERTY
Semi - /Quasi - Public
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Public Utility
School Property
N
APPENDIX A
List of Enrolled Properties
GACurrent Planning DivlTking\MTP\Letters of Interest Received
2 E—+
Cif
00
3.32.A.2
4.3..14A
4.43.A.3
4.42.A.9B
4.6.A.23
4.6.A.23B
Cecil M and Mary B Kirk
6.11..9E
6200 Orange Grove Rd.
Working Farm
6.11..9
Hillsborough, NC
6.11..10
Larry J and Sarah A Clayton
2.22..13
Hawkins Road
Working Farm
2.22..12
1.17..4A
OWASA
6.24..9A
No Address
Public Utility
6.24..10A & 10B
6.24..27
6.23..1A
6.10..30
6.28..9 & 9E
Victor Carl Walters, Jr. &
2.42..11 & 11A
7119 High Rock Rd.
Voluntary Agricultural
Elizabeth T. Walters
2.42..14 & B
Efland, NC
District
Hurley & Louise Tate
2.30..18
8623 Harmony Church Rd.
Voluntary Agricultural
Efland, NC
District
Lee H. Miller
1.17..14, 14A & C
3600 Pearson Road
Voluntary Agricultural
1.24..2G
Hurdle Mills, NC
District
2.23..15A & D
Robert Strayhorn
1.26..17 & 19
No Address
Voluntary Agricultural
5.8..1
District
GACurrent Planning DivlTking\MTP\Letters of Interest Received
2 E—+
Cif
00
1
APPENDIX A 3
List of Enrolled Properties
The following Fire Station parcels are to be included. Nick Waters, Director of Emergency Management, has
indicated that the Volunteer Fire Departments in the County are interested in participating in the plan. They are
as follows:
Caldwell Fire Dept.
1.15 -2B
7020 Guess Rd.
Fire Station
Rougemont, NC
Cedar Grove Fire Dept.
2.20..13
720 Hawkins Rd
Fire Station
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove Fire Dept.
2.31..213
5912 Penecost Rd.
Fire Station
Cedar Grove, NC
Efland Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.
3.34..2A
3900 US 70 West
Fire Station
Efland, NC
New Hope Improvement Assoc., Inc.
7.16..59
4012 Whitfield Rd.
Fire Station
Chapel Hill, NC
Eno Fire Protection Association
5.25..70
5019 US 70 East
Fire Station
Durham, NC
Eno Fire & Emergency Services, Inc.
5.11..25
Vacant Parcel
Fire Station
(Proposed)
New Hope Fire Station
7.9..4
4701 NC 86 South
Fire Station
(located on New Hope Church
Chapel Hill, NC
property)
GACurrent Planning Div \Tking \MTP \Letters of Interest Received
N
Cil
C�
160
APPENDIX B -- Listing of Birds Observed
161
Orange County --1999 -2003
TOTALS FOR ALL ROUTES
The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of routes on which each species was recorded (total
number of routes = 12).
This list includes some species nesting (or probably nesting) in Orange County but not recorded on
any route this year.
Last updated:. 27 July 2003
Abbrev Species
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
GBHE Great Blue Heron
2(2)
4(3)
1(1)
2(1)
2(1)
GRHE Green Heron
4 (3)
3 (3)
2 (2)
1(1)
0 (0)
BLVD Black Vulture
1(1)
7 (4)
4 (2)
21(2)
2(l)
TUVU Turkey Vulture
3 (3)
11(2)
4 (3)
17 (4)
9 (2)
CAGO Canada Goose
77 (9)
143 (3)
172 (7)
58 (4)
64 (6)
WODU Wood Duck
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (2)
MALL Mallard
4(l)
10 (2)
7 (2)
2(l)
3(l)
SSHA Sharp- shinned Hawk
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
COHA Cooper's Hawk
2 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
RSHA Red - shouldered Hawk
7 (4)
4 (3)
6 (4)
5 (3)
9 (4)
B WHA Broad- winged Hawk
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
RTHA Red - tailed Hawk
4 (2)
2 (2)
5 (3)
4 (4)
3 (2)
WITU Wild Turkey
0 (0)
1(1)
1(1)
3 (2)
0 (0)
NOBO Northern Bobwhite
7 (6)
8 (5)
8 (5)
8 (4)
1(1)
KILL Killdeer
16 (7)
16 (6)
5 (5)
7 (4)
8 (3)
RODO Rock Dove
0 (0)
2(l)
21(3)
7 (3)
26 (3)
MODO Mourning Dove
229 (12)
183 (12)
180 (12)
223 (12)
155 (11)
YBCU Yellow -billed Cuckoo
5 (3)
4 (3)
8 (6)
2 (2)
5 (4)
EASO E Screech -Owl
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
GHOW Great Homed Owl
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2(l)
1(1)
BAOW Barred Owl
3 (3)
1(1)
3 (3)
1(1)
3(l)
CWWI chuck- wilt's -widow
1(1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
WWI Whip- Poor -Will
1(1)
5 (1)
3 (2)
5 (2)
2 (2)
CHSW Chimney Swift
59(10)
46(10)'
65 (12)
66 (11)
70 (10)
RTHU Ruby -thr
Hummingbird
0 (0)
2 (2)
0 (0)
7 (3)
7 (4)
BEKI Belted Kingfisher
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
RHWO Red - headed
Woodpecker
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
RBWO Red - bellied
Woodpecker
73 (12)
55 (12)
60 (12)
70 (12)
58 (12)
DOWO Downy Woodpecker
22 (9)
11(5)
16 (7)
20 (9)
17 (8)
HAWO Hairy Woodpecker
4(3)
0(0)
1(1)
3 (3)
1(1)
NOFL N Flicker
7 (3)
0 (0)
3(l)
7 (3)
2 (2)
Ulm
2004 2005
162
APPENDIX B -- Listing of Birds Observed
PIWO Pileated Woodpecker
1(1)
3 (1)
3 (1)
1(1)
0 (0)
EAWP E Wood -Pewee
40(11)
36(11)
41(11)
36(11)
34(9)
ACFL Acadian Flycatcher
5 (4)
3 (3)
5 (2)
5 (5)
3 (3)
EAPH E Phoebe
32 (8)
7 (5)
13 (8)
9 (5)
17 (9)
GCFL Gr Crested Flycatcher
16 (7)
9 (6)
18 (11)
9 (6)
11(7)
EAKI E Kingbird
10 (4)
9 (3)
11(7)
7 (4)
7 (3)
LOSH Loggerhead Shrike
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
WEVI White -eyed Vireo
3 (2)
3 (3)
3 (2)
4 (3)
7 (5)
BHVI Blue- headed Vireo
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
YTVI Yellow - throated Vireo
2 (2)
2 (2)
4 (4)
3 (2)
9 (6)
WAVI Warbling Vireo
0(0)
1(1)
2(2)
1(1)
1(1)
REVI Red -eyed Vireo
120(12)
107(11)
107(12)
104(12)
104(12)
BLJA Blue Jay
45 (11)
35 (9)
61(12)
57 (12)
48 (11)
AMCR Am Crow
274 (11)
304 (12)
331(12)
307 (12)
273 (12)
FICR Fish Crow
5 (3)
10 (3)
7 (3)
2 (2)
5 (3)
NRWS Rough-winged
2 (1)
0 (0)
12 (2)
6 (2)
2 (1)
CLS W Cliff Swallow
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
BARS Barn Swallow
48 (6)
35 (6)
64 (7)
34 (5)
31(4)
CACH Car Chickadee
109 (11)
72 (11)
73 (10)
67 (10)
67 (11)
TUTI Tufted Titmouse
159 (12)
155 (12)
165 (12)
137 (12)
149 (12)
WBNU White -br Nuthatch
16 (8)
20 (8)
18 (8)
6 (3)
16 (6)
BHNU Brown- headed
6 (4)
8 (4)
22 (5)
9 (5)
2 (2)
Nuthatch
CARW Carolina Wren
186(12)
133 (12)
147 (12)
138 (12)
179 (12)
HOWR House Wren
3 (2)
7 (1)
5 (2)
8 (3)
7 (1)
BGGN B -g Gnatcatcher
68 (11)
37 (10)
50 (10)
31(9)
51(7)
EABL E Bluebird
89 (12)
102 (12)
101 (11)
81(11)
90 (12)
WOTH Wood Thrush
79(12)
74(12)
90(11)
73 (12)
72(12)
AMMO Am Robin
73 (11)
68 (10)
66 (10)
88 (12)
78 (11)
GRCA Gray Catbird
18 (7)
11(3)
12 (4)
7 (4)
10 (4)
NOMO N Mockingbird
92(l)
78 (12)
94 (12)
132 (12)
88 (12)
BRTH Brown Thrasher
16 (8)
23 (8)
16 (10)
22 (9)
9 (6)
EUST Eur Starling
156(11)
73(11)
109(12)
114(10)
147(8)
CED W Cedar Waxwing
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (2)
4(l)
2 (1)
NOPA Northern Parula
1(1)
2 (2)
7 (4)
0 (0)
2 (1)
YT,WA Yellow - throated
2 (2)
1(1)
3 (2)
4 (2)
2 (1)
Warbler
PIWA Pine Warbler
94(10)
99(12)
77(11)
70(11)
42(8)
PRAW Prairie Warbler
4 (2)
9 (4)
11(7)
9 (4)
5 (2)
AMRE Amer Redstart
0 (0) .
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
0 (0)
PROW Prothonotary Warbler
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
OVEN Ovenbird
29 (9)
16 (7)
26 (8)
15 (8)
13 (5)
LO WA La Waterthrush
1(1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
KEWA Kentucky Warbler
0(0).
1(1)
1(1)
1(1)
0 (0)
COPE Com Yellowthroat
21(6)
18 (8)
19 (8)
25 (9)
32 (8)
B
-2
LM
163
APPENDIX B -- Listing
of Birds Observed
HOWA Hooded Warbler
0 (0)
1(1)
3 (3)
5 (4)
5 (4)
YBCH Yellow-breasted Chat
.10(6)
13 (8)
15 (6)
18 (7)
12 (5)
SUTA Summer Tanager
16 (7)
17 (9)
17 (9)
- 15 (6)
23 (9)
SCTA Scarlet Tanager
6 (5)
3 (3)
9 (6)
5 (3)
8 (4)
EATO ETowhee
55(11)
52(12)
60(12)
90(12).
95(11)
CHSP Chipping Sparrow
103 (11)
94 (11)
90 (12)
95 (11)
88 (11)
FISP Field Sparrow
37 (11)
14 (8)
16 (7)
25 (8)
14 (6)
GRSP Grasshopper Sparrow
9 (4)
8 (3)
8 (4)
6 (3)
8 (2)
SOSP Song Sparrow
1(1)
1(1)
0(0)
1(1)
1(1)
NOCA N Cardinal
299 (12)
268 (12)
308 (12)
306 (12)
321(11)
BLGR Blue Grosbeak
34 (11)
30 (9)
37 (11)
30 (9)
37 (10)
INBU Indigo Bunting
130 (12)
133 (12)
135 (12)
97 (12)
130 (12)
DICK Dickcissel
0 (0)
0 (0)
1(1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
RWBL Red -wing Blackbird
40 (11)
23 (7)
11(5)
24 (9)
18 (7)
EAME E Meadowlark
75 (10)
34 (11)
36 (10)
25 (9)
20 (4)
COGR Com Grackle
222 (12)
111(12)
92 (10)
110 (10)
94 (9)
BHCO Br- headed Cowbird
20 (7)
23 (7)
28 (7)
25 (8)
25 (8)
OROR Orchard Oriole
4 (4)
5 (4)
4 (3)
7 (4)
7 (4)
BAOR Baltimore Oriole
1(1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
HOFI House Finch
48 (10)
28 (6)
30(8)
36 (9)
38 (8)
AMGO Am Goldfinch
76 (12)
66 (9)
81(12)
107 (12)
78 (0)
HOSP House Sparrow
26 (6)
13 (4)
7 (4)
19 (5)
17 (3 )
LM
164
165
LFFE.ND.tX U - Unapel nin lilra um weemy
rrequeney
l,neemn ver.2002.0322
January FebruarYl March Aril I May
June
July August Set October Nov Dec
Red - throated Loon
yr yr yr vt
yr yr yr vi
vr
yr o r r
yr yr yr vi
Common Loon
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
yr yr vr
yr
yr yr vi
yr r r o
o u u u
o o r r
Pied -billed Grebe*
fc fc fc fe
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o o o
u u fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Homed Grebe
u u u u
u u u u
u u u o
r r yr vi
yr
r
r o o o
o u u u
u u u u
Red - necked Grebe
yr yr yr r
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
x
Eared Grebe
x x
x x
x
Western Grebe
x
Black -capped Petrel
x
Sooty Shearwater
x
Audubon's Shearwater
x
White -faced Storm - Petrel
x
Leach's Storm - Petrel
x
unknown Storm - Petrel
x
I
White- tailed Tropiebird
x
x
Northern Gannet
x
x
x
x
American White Pelican
x
x
x
x x x x
Brown Pelican
x x
x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x
Great Cormorant
x
Double - crested Cormorant*
u u u u
u u u u
fe fc fc fe
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fe fc
u u u u
u u u u
Anhinga
yr
yr yr
x
American Bittern
vrvrvrvrvrvrvrvivrvrvrvir
r r r
r r
x
yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vr
Least Bittern*
yr vi
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr
x
Great Blue Heron*
fe fc fc fe
fc fc fc fc
fc fe fe fc
fc fe u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u fe fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c fc fc
"Great White" Heron
x x
Great Egret
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r
o u c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc u u
r r yr
yr yr yr vz
Snowy Egret
vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
r o u o
o o o o
a
Little Blue Heron
r
r r r r
r r
r r
0 o u u
u u u u
o r r
Tricolored Heron
yr
r r 0 u
o o o o
o o 0 r
Cattle Egret
r r
r r r
yr yr r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r yr yr v
yr yr yr
Green Heron*
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr r o
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u uuu
u o 0
0 0 0 o
r r r r
yr yr yr
Black- crowned Night -Heron
r r r r
r r
r r
o o o r
r r r r
yr yr yr vi
yr yr
x
Yellow -crud. Night -Heron*
r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o o o
r r r r
r r r
White Ibis
x
yr
o u u u
u u u u
0 o yr
yr yr
x
Glossy Ibis
r r r r
r yr yr
r r r. o
r r r r
Ivr
r r r
r r r r
r
Wood Stork
x
Black Vulture*
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
fc fe fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Turkey Vulture*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Fulvous Whistling -Duck
x
x
Greater White- fronted Goose
x
x
Snow Goose
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr
yr yr yr vr
r yr yr vIvr
yr yr Vi
Canada Goose*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fc fe
fe fe fe fe
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Brant
x
x
Tundra Swan
yr yr yr VI
yr yr vk VI
yr yr yr vI
x
vr
r r r r
yr yr yr
Mute Swan
x x
x
Wood Duck*
u u u u
u u fe fe
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fe fe
fe fc fe fe
fe fe fe fe
fe fc fe fe
fc fe fe fc
I u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Gadwall
o o o o
o o o o
r r yr vi
vrvrvr
r r r
r o o o
o o o o
American Wigeon
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 o o r
r r yr vi
yr
r
r r o o
o o o o
o o o o
American Black Duck'
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o o
o r
o o o 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Mallard*
c c c c
c c c c
c •c c c
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc
dvr
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Blue-winged Teal*
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
o o u u
o e o o
o r r
yr yr yr
yr yr r
o o u u
fc u u o
o o r r
r r r r
Ir yr yr vi
Northern Shoveler
r r r r
r r r r
r o o o
yr yr yr vi
yr r
r r r r
r r r o
r r r r
Northern Pintail
r r o o
o 0 o o
o r r r
r r
yr yr yr vjr
r r r
r r o o
r r r r
Green - winged Teal
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
r r r r
vrvr VI
vrr o u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o o
Canvasback
r r o r
r r r r
r r r r
r w yr
r r r r
r r r r
Redhead
r r o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r
r r
r r r r
r r r r
Ring- necked Duck
fc fc fc fc
fe fe fc fc
fc fe fc o
r r r r
yr yr
x
yr yr r
o fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
Greater Scaup
yr yr r r
r r r r
yr yr yr
vi
yr yr yr v
yr yr yr v
Lesser Scaup
000000000000r
r r r
r r
r r o
o u 000000
Surf Scoter
yr
yr yr yr VI
yr yr yr VI
White- winged Scoter
yr yr yr VI
yr yr vt vi
yr yr yr Vr,vr
yr yr vr
Black Scoter
x
Vr
yr yr yr VI
yr yr
Long - tailed Duck
r r yr vr
yr yr yr vr
yr yr yr
yr r r
r r yr vi
Bufchead
u u u u
u u u u
u u o o
r yryr vi
yr
r u u u
u u u u
Common Goldeneye
r r r r
r o r r
r r r r
x
o
r r r r
Hooded Merganser
u u u u
u u uuu
u u u
u u r r
r.r
x
x
1
o u u
u u u u
Common Merganser*
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r i• r r
Red - breasted Merganser
r o r r
r r r r
r u u u
o o o r
r r
r r r
r r r r
r r r r
Ruddy Duck
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 'o o
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Osprey*
vrvrvrvivrvrvrr
0 u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u It u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o or
vrvrvr VI
Swallow - tailed Kite
x
x
Mississippi Kite*
yr vi
yr r vrvir
r r r
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr
Bald Eagle*
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
u u fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u o 0
0 0 0 0
Northern Harrier
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o o
o o r
vrvrvr
r r r r
r r o o
o o u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Sharp - shinned Hawk*
uuuuuuuuuuuu000000r
r
r r r r
r r r r
r r o o
o o o u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Copper's Hawk*
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
P_1
IMENDIX C — Chapel Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency Checklist ver.2002.0322
C -2
January IFebruary
March
Aril I
May
June I
July
August I
Set
October I
- Nov
Dec
Northern Goshawk
' x
x
Red - shouldered Hawk* uuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Broad - winged Hawk*
r r r
0 u u u u
0 0 0
0 o o o
o o o o o
o o o
o o o o o
r r
Swainson's Hawk
x
Red - tailed Hawk* fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc I fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc I fc
fe fc fc
fc fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
Rough- legged Hawk
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr vr
vr, vr vr
vr vr vr v,
vr
vr vi
Golden Eagle
x
vr vr vr vr
vr vr
vr
American Kestrel*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u o o
o r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r
r o 0 loo
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Merlin r
r r r
r r r r r
r r r
r r r r r
vr
vr r r
o o o r
r r r r
r r r r
Pcre 'ne Falcon
vr vr vr
vr vr vr
vr vr vr
yr vr vr
vr
vr
vr r r
o o o
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr vi
Wild Turkey*
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000
Northern Bobwhite*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Yellow Rail
x
Black Rail*
x x x
x
King Rail*
yr
yr yr yr vi
vr vr vr VI
vr vr vr vi
vr
x
Virginia Rail
vr vr vr
vr
vr vr vr r
vr vr vr vr
vr vr vr vr
x
Sorg
r r r r
r
r
r r r r
r r r r
r vr vr
Common Moorhen
vr vi
vr vr vr
x
vr vr
American Coot
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r
x
r r r
r u fc fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Sandhill Crane
x
Black - bellied Plover
r o o r
r r r
r o o o
o o o o
o 0 0 0
0 r r
American Golden- Plover
vr vr
. r r
o o o o
o o o o
o r r
Wilson's Plover
x
x
x
Semipalmated Plover
r r
r r r
r r r
r o o o
o o o r
r r r
vr
x
Piping Plover
I
I
x
x x
x
Killdeer*
fc fc fc fc
fe fe fc fc
fe fc fe fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
c c c c
fc fe fe fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Black- necked Stilt
x
American Avocet
vr vr vr
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr
Greater Yellowlegs
r
r r r
o o u u
u r r r
r r r
r o o o
o u u u
u u o o
o o o o
o r r r
r r r r
Lesser Yellowlegs
vr I
r r r
o o u u
u r r r
r o o o
o u u u
u u o o
o o o o
r r r r
r r r v
Solitary Sandpiper
r u fc fc
fc o r
fc fc fc
fc u u u
u o o o
o o r
Willet
r
yr yr r r
r r r r
r
Spotted Sandpiper
r o fc fc Ir
fc o r
r u u u
u u u u
o o o o
o r r vi
vr
Upland Sandpiper
r r r
r
r r r
r r r r
vr vr vr
Whimbrel
x
vi
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr Nq
vr vr
Hudsonian Godwit
x
x
x
Marbled Godwit
vr vr V,
vr vr
Ruddy Tumstone
r o r r
r r r
r o o o
o o 0 o
r
Red Knot
vr vr
vr r r r
r r vr
vr vr vr
vr
Sanderlin
r r
r r
0 0 o
u u u o
r r r r
r vr vr
Semipalmated Sandpiper
r r
r r r
vr r r r
o u u u
o o r r
r r
Western Sandpiper
vr vr v
vr vr vr
r
r o o o
o r r r
r r r r
vr vr vr v
vr vr vr
Least Sandpiper
r r
r o o u
u o o
r o o u
u u u u
u o o o
o o o o
o r r r
r r r vr
White- rumped Sandpiper
r
r o r
r r r
o o o r
r r r r
r r r r
vr vr vr vt
vr vr
Baird's Sanddpip er
r o
r r r r
vr yr
Pectoral Sandpiper
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
r
r u u u
u u u u
u u u o
o 0 o o
o r r r
r vr vr vi
Dunlin
vr
r r
r r r
x
x
r r r
r r u u
u o o o
vr vr vr
Stilt Sandpiper
r r r
r u u o
o o o o
o 0 0 0
Buff - breasted Sandpiper
r r
o o o o
vr vr vr
Ruff
x
x
Short- billed Dowitcher
vr vt
vr vr vr
o 0 0
o u u u
u
Long- billed Dowitcher
x
vi
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr vr
vr vr vr vi
Common Snipe
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u 0
o
x
vrvrvir
r o o
o o o 0
o o 0 0
u u u u
u u u u
American Woodcock*
u u u u
u u u u
u o o o
o o o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o u u
Wilson's Phalaro a
r r
r r r r
r r r r
vr vr vr vi
vr
Red - necked Phalarope
x
vr vr vi
r vr vr vi
vr vr vr
Red Phalarope
vr vr
Pomarine Jaeger
I
x
x
Parasitic Jaeger
x
x x
x
Laughing Gull
r r r r
Ir r r
r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r
Little Gull
x x
Bonaparte's Gull
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
o o o o
o r r r
x
r
o o u u
u u u u
Ring- billed Gull
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
c c fc fc
fc r r r
r r r r
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
u u c c
c c a s
Herring Gull
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o o
o r
r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o u u
u u u u
Lesser Black- backed Gull
vr vr vr VI
vr vr vr vI
vr vr
vr vr
Glaucous Gull
x
x x
Great Black- backed Gull
vr vr vr r
r r vr
vr vr vr
vr vr vr
vr
x
x
VT vr vr v
Caspian Tern
Ivr
r
r o u u
o o
r r
r r o o
o o o o
o o o r
x
Royal Tern
I
x
x
vr vi
vr vr vr vi
Sandwich Tom
x
x
Common Tern
r r r
r r r
vi
vr vr r r
r r r r
o o o o
Forster's Tern
x x
r
r r r r
r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o o o
r r r r
r r
Least Tern
x
x
Bridled Tern
x x
Sooty Tern
x
x x
C -2
167
ApDTi IVnTY r — i-ih nPl Hill Rird Club Weekly Frequency Checklist ver.2002.0322
C -3
January IFebruary
March
Aril I
May
June
July
August I
Set
October I
Nov
Dec
Black Tem
yr
vr vr
vr vr
r 0 0 0
0 0 0 u
0 r
Black Skimmer
x
x x
Long - billed Murrelet
x
Rock Dove* c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c e
c c c c
c c c c
c c c
c c c ccc
ccc
c c
Mourning Dove* c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c
Common Ground -Dove
x
x
Black- billed Cuckoo
r r
r r
r r r
r r r r
Yellow - billed Cuckoo*
r u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o r vr
vr vr
Barn Owl* vr
vr vr vi vr
vr vr vi vr
vr vr vi
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr v vr
vr yr
yr vr vr v vr
vr vr yr
yr yr vr
vr vr vr
vr vr v vr
yr vr vr
Eastern Screech -Owl* u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u u u
u u u
u u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u
Great Horned Owl* u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u
Barred Owl* u
u u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Short-eared Owl
yr yr w yr
yr w vi
yr yr yr
yr yr w
vi
vr yr
yr vr
N. Saw -whet Owl
yr yr yr yr
yr w VI
yr yr yr
III
yr
yr yr
Common Nighthawk*
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 o o
o o o o
0 o o u fc
u o r r
vr vr vi
Chuck - will's - widow*
r r o 0
0 0 0 o
o o o o
r r r r
r r r r r
Whip- poor -will*
r u
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u u u
o 0 0 0 0
0 0
Chimney Swift*
r
fc c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c e c c
c c c c c
c c c c
c c r
Ruby - throated Hummingbird*
vr vr vr vr
yr yr
vr vr yr r
o fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fe fe
fe fe fe fe
fe fc fe fc fe
fc u u
o o r r
r yr yr
yr vr vr vi
Rufous Hummingbird
vr vr yr
vr yr
vr yr vr
vr
vr vr yr vi
vr vr vr vi
Belted Kingfisher*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Red - headed Woodpecker*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Red - bellied Woodpecker*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Yellow- bellied Sapsucker
fc fc le fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fe fc
u o r r
r
r o
u u fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fe fc
Downy Woodpecker*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fe
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Hairy Woodpecker*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Red - cockaded Woodpecker'
vr vr yr v
vr vr vr
vr yr yr
yr vr vr
vr vr vr
vr yr vr
yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr v
N. "Yellow- shafted" Flicker*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fe fc
fc fe fe fc
Ivr
fe fc fe
fe fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
PileatedWoodpecker*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
Olive -sided Flycatcher
r
r o
v
vr vr r r
r r r r
r r
Eastern Wood - Pewee*
r o fe
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fe
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc o
r r r r
r r
Yellow - bellied Flycatcher
vr
vr yr vr
yr o r r
x
Acadian Flycatcher*
0 fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u u u
o o o o
r r r r
r
Alder Flycatcher
x
Willow Flycatcher
yr yr
yr vr
Least Flycatcher
r
r
r
r o r r
Pacific -slope Flycatcher
x x
Eastern Phoebe*
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
fc fe fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fe fe fc
fe fe fe fc
fc fe fe fc Ir
fe fc fe fc
u u u u
u u u u
Great Crested Flycatcher*
u fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u u u
o o o o
o o o r
r
Western Kingbird
x
Eastern Kingbird*
x
r o fc c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc u o r
x
Scissor - tailed Flycatcher
x
Loggerhead Shrike*
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
0 o o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r o o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
White -eyed Vireo*
yr
r u
fe c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fe u
o o r r
vr vr vr vi
vr vr vr
Blue- headed Vireo*
o o r r
r r r r
lro 0 0
0 0 0 0
o r r r
r r r r
Ir r r r
r r r r
r r o o
u u u u
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Yellow - throated Vireo*
r
o u u u
u u u u
u u u
u u u
u u u u
u u u u
0
x
Warbling Vireo*
yr w
vr yr w
w
x
Philadelphia Vireo
r r
III
r
r o 0 o
r r
Red -eyed Vireo*
r
u fc c c
c c c c
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c u
o o r r
Blue Jay*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c ccc
c c c
American Crow*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Fish Crow*
yr yr yr
r r r o
0 0 0 o
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u o
r r r r
yr yr yr
vr vr yr
Common Raven
x
Horned Lark
vr vr
vr vr
x
yr vr vr
vr vr vr
yr yr r r
Purple Martin*
r r 010
u fc c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c fc u o
r r
Tree Swallow*
r
o u c
c fc fc fc
fc u o r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o o o u
u u u u
u o r r
r r
N. Rough- winged Swallow*
r u u
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fc u u
o o r r
r r r r
Bank Swallow
jo r r r
r r u u
u u u o
r
r r r o
r r r r
r
Cliff Swallow*
r o o o
fc u o o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o r
Bam Swallow*
r 0 u
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
o r r r
yr yr yr
Carolina Chickadee*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Tufted Titmouse*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Red - breasted Nuthatch
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o o o
Cc
o o r r
r r
r r o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
White - breasted Nuthatch*
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fe
fc c fc fc
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fe fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
Brown - headed Nuthatch*
fc fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
Brown Creeper
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o r r
r r
o 0 u
u u u 'u
u u u u
Carolina Wren*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Bewicks Wren
x
x
x
x
x
House Wren*
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u o 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Winter Wren
u u u u
u u u u
u u o r
r r yr
vrr r r
o o u u
u u u u
u u u u
Sedge Wren
vr vr vr
x
vr vr r
r r
r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r vr vr vi
vr vr vr vr
Marsh Wren
vr vr vr vr
vr vr vr
vr vr vr r
r r r r
r
r r r o
o r r r
r vr vr
vr vr yr vr
Blue -gray Gnatcatcher*
r r r
r r o u
fc c c c
c c c c
c c cccccccccc
fc fc fc u
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
Golden crowned Kinglet
c c c c
c c c c
c c fc u
o r r
vr vr vr
yr
r o u fc
c c c c
c c c c
Ruby- crowned Kinglet
c c c c
c cccc
c c c
fe fc fc u
o r
yr
r r 0 u
fc fc c c
c c c c
c c c c
C -3
• i
Chapel Hill Bird Club
Weekly Frequency
Checklist
ver.2oo2.0322
January February March
Aril I
May
June I July August I Set October I Nov Dec
Eastern Bluebird*
c 'c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c ccc
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Veery
r r o00o
r r
o0000
Gray- cheeked Thrush
r
r r r o
r
r o o
u o r r
r yr yr vi
yr
Bicknell's Thrush
x
Swainson's Thrush
o o u
u o r r
r r
r d u u ju
o r r
r
Hermit Thrush,
fe fc fc fc
fc fe fe fc
fc fc fc fe
fc u o r
r .
yr yr vr
r r r o
u fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Wood Thrush*
o u fc c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c fc u
o r r r
r
American Robin*
a a a a
I
a a a a
a a s a
a c c c
c c ccc
c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
a a a a
a a a a
Gray Catbird*
r r r r
r r r r
r r r �o
o u u fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u o o
r r r r
r r r r
Northern Mockingbird*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Brown Thrasher*
u u u u
u u u u
u fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fe fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fc fc fe
fe fc fc fc
u u u u
u u u u
American Pipit
fe fe fe fe
fe fc fe fc
fe fe fe fe
u u o r
r r
x r
r r r r
r o u u
fe fe fe fe
fe fe fc fc
European Starling*
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
a a c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c a a
a a a a
a a a a
Cedar Waxwing*
c c c c
c c c c
c c 'c c
c c c c
fc u o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
o 0 0 o
u u fc c
c c c c
c c c c
Blue- winged Warbler
yr vi
yr r o 0
o r r
vi
yr r o 0
0 0 0 o
r
Golden- winged Warbler
r r
r r
r r
r r r r
Tennessee Warbler
yr
yr yr yr r
r r r
r r
r o 0 0
0 0
Orange- crowned Warbler
yr yr yr
yr
yr yr yr
r r r r
r o 0 o
r r r
yr yr yr VI
Nashville Warbler
r r
r
o
0 0 0 0
0 0 o r
Ivr
Northern Parula*
r o
fc c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fc fc
u u o o
yr yr yr
Yellow Warbler
yr yr o u
u o r
r r r
r o 0 0
0 0 o r
yr yr
Chestnut -sided Warbler
r r r o
0 o r
o o
u u u o
o r yr vi
Magnolia Warbler
r r r o
0 0 o r
r r
o u fe u
o o o r
Ivr
Cape May Warbler
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vt
yr yr yr r
r r r o
o r r
r r
o 0 0 0
0 0 o r
yr yr yr
yr yr
Black- throated Blue Warbler
yr yr yr
yr yr
r o fc
u u r
r r
o u u u
o 0 o r
yr yr yr
yr yr yr vi
Y -r "Myrtle" Warbler
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c u r
r r r r
o c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Y -r "Audubon's" Warbler
x
Black -thr. Green Warbler
vi
r r r o
o r r
r r
r o 0 0
0 o r
x
Blackbumian Warbler
r r r r
r r r
r o
0 0 0 0
0 o r r
Yellow - throated Warbler*
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr r u fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
u u o 0
0 0 o r
r yr yr vr
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr
Pine Warbler*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Prairie Warbler*
x
r c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
o 0 0 o
r r
Palm Warbler
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o r r
r r r
r o u u
u u u u
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Bay - breasted Warbler
yr r
r o o r
r r
r r r o
u o r
Black poll Warbler
u
u u u 'o
r
r r o
0 o r r
yr yr
Cerulean Warbler
yr VI
yr yr yr
r r r
vrvrvrvrvrvrw
Black- and -white Warbler*
r r
r o
u fc fc fc
fc u o r
r yr yr r
r r r r
r r u u
fc fc fc u
u u r r
r r r r
r r r r
American Redstart*
x
yr yr
r c c c
c fc u u
u u u u
o 0 0 0
0 o u fc
c c c fc
u u r r
Prothonotary Warbler*
r
u fc fc fc
fe fc fe fc
fc fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
o r r r
Worm- eating Warbler
yr v
yr r o o
r r r
r r o 0
0 0 0 o
r r r
Swainson's Warbler"
yr vI
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr VT
yr
Ovenbird*
r
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fe fc fc fc
u u u u
u u o 0
0 0
Northern Waterthrush
x
r r o u
u u o r
v
yr yr o 0
o u o 0
0
Louisiana Waterthrush*
r u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
r r r
x
Kentucky Warbler*
r o u
u u u u
u u u u
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
r r r r
x
Connecticut Warbler
yr yr yr vi
yr K Vr
Mourning Warbler
yr
yr yr vi
yr yr yr
Common Yellowthroat*
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 o u fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c u
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Hooded Warbler*
r fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fe fc
u u u u
u u u u
o 0 o r
r
Wilson's Warbler
r
r r r
r r
r r r r
r
yr -
Canada Warbler
r
r o o r
r r o 0
0 0 0 o
r
Yellow - breasted Chat*
vrvrvrvivrvrvrvivrvrvrvivrr
u c
c c c c
c c c c
fe fe fc fc
u u o 0
0 0 o r
r r yr vi
vrvrwvi
wwvrvi
Summer Tanager*
r o u c
c c c c
c c c c
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc o
w yr yr
yr yr yr
yr yr w vr
Scarlet Tanager*
yr yr
yr o u fc
Ix fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fe
u u u u
o 0 0 o
u fc fe u
o o o r
Western Tanager
x
x
Eastern Towhee*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
cc c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Bachman's Sparrow*
yr yr yr v
yr yr yr v
yr yr yr v
yr yr yr
American Tree Sparrow
yr yr yr
r r r
yr
yr yr yr
yr yr yr
Chipping Sparrow*
fc fc fc fe
fc fe fc jvr
fc fc fc fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Clay- colored Sparrow
w yr vr
vrvr
Field Sparrow*
c c c c
c c c c
cc c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c e
Vesper Sparrow
r r r r
r r r r
r r o 0
o r r r
r
r r r u
r r r r
r r r r
Lark Sparrow
x
x
Savannah Sparrow
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc u
o r r
r r r
o u fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
Ix
Savannah "Ipswich" Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow*
x x
r r
r r o 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
r r r r
r r
Henslow's Sparrow
x
Nelson's? S -t Sparrow
x x x
Fox Sparrow
u u u u
u u u u
o o r r
r r
r
o u u u
u u u u
Song Barrow*
ccccccecccccccfcuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuufcCCCCCCCCC
Lincoln's Sparrow
yr yr yr vr
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr r
r r yr vi
yr yr
r
r r o o
r r r vi
yr yr yr vr
Swamp Sparrow
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fc u
u r
r
u fc c c
c c c c
c c c c
White- throated Sparrow
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
c c c c
fc u o r
r r
u fc c c
a a a a
a a a a
White- crowned Sparrow
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
r r r
r o 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Harris's Sparrow
x
C -4
Chapel Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency. Checklist
ver. 2002.1.0 v
Sigh nngs from i975- 312002 from Chatham, Durham, and Urange Counties, NC:, plus areas of Palls Lake in Granville and Wake Counties. 326 species.
January
Februaryl
March
Aril I
May
June
July
August
Set
October
Nov I
Dee
D -e "Slate - colored" Junco
a a a a
a a a a
a a c c
fc u o r
r
75 -100%
20 -50
usually present and seen most days inappropriate habitat
uncommon
o u fc c
a a a a
a a a a
Dark -eyed "Oregon" Junco
occasional
0
25 -75%
1 -5
usually present but not seen most weeks
rare
r
10 -50%
<1
may be present but not detected most years
very rare
x
D -e "Pink- sided" Junco
<1
x
accidental
x
<5%
<I
five or fewer reports in 25 years/temporally isolated reports
Lapland Longspur
x
VI
yr yr
Smith's Long spur
x
Snow Bunting
yr yr
yr VI
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
Northern Cardinal*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c -c c c
c c c c
Rose - breasted Grosbeak
r o u
u o
r o u u
u o r r
yr yr
Blue Grosbeak*
yr
yr yr yr vi
yr r u c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fe u o r
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr VI
Indigo Bunting*
yr yr v
yr r u c
Ic c c c
c c c c
Ic c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Ifi; u o r
Dickcissel*
x
yr yr yr vt
yr yr yr VI
yr yr yr
x
Bobolink
u
fcor
x
r o
o o o o
o r r
Red - winged Blackbird*
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c e
a a a a
a a a a
Eastern Meadowlark*
fc fe fc fc
fe fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fe fc
fc fc fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc fc
fc fc fc f
fc fc fc fc
Yellow- headed Blackbird
x
x
Rusty Blackbird
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o o
o r
r
r o u u
u u u u
Brewer's Blackbird
yr yr yr
yr yr vi
x
yr yr vi
yr yr yr vr
Common Grackle*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c e c
c c c c
c c c c
Brown- headed Cowbird*
fc fe fc fe
fe fc fe fc
fe fe fc fc
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
fc fe fc fe
fe fe fe fe
fe fe fc fc
fe fc fc fc
fe fc fe fc
fe fe fe fc
Orchard Oriole*
yr yr
r u u
u u u u
u u u u
o o o 0
o o o o
o o r
Baltimore Oriole
r r r r
r
r r
r r o u
o r yr vt
yr yr
r o
u u o o
o r r r
r r r r
r r r r
Pine Grosbeak
x
Purple Finch
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u o o
r r
x
r r
r o 0 o
o o u u
u fe fc fc
House Finch*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c e c c
c c e c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Red Crossbill
yr yr yr vi
yr yr yr vi
x
x
x x
vi
White- winged Crossbill
x
x
Common Redpoll
yr yr yr vi
yr
yr vi
yr yr yr vi
Pine Siskin
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u o o
o r r r
r
r r o
o u u u
u u u u
American Goldfinch*
c c c o
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c e c
c c c c
e c c c
c c c c
Evening Grosbeak
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
u u u o
o r r r
yr yr
Ir yr yr y
r o o u
u u u u
House Sparrow*
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c ccc
c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
Sigh nngs from i975- 312002 from Chatham, Durham, and Urange Counties, NC:, plus areas of Palls Lake in Granville and Wake Counties. 326 species.
Compiled by Will Cook (cwcook@duke.edu) from sightings published in The Chat and The Bulletin (CHBC) and posted on Carolinabirds.
code
count freq
count avg
description
abundant
a
100%
>500
always present and easy to find in large numbers * breeding species
common
c
90 -100%
50 -500
always present and easy to find in appropriate habitat " suspected breeding sp.
fairly common
fc
75 -100%
20 -50
usually present and seen most days inappropriate habitat
uncommon
u
50 -100%
5 -20
usually present but not seen most days
occasional
0
25 -75%
1 -5
usually present but not seen most weeks
rare
r
10 -50%
<1
may be present but not detected most years
very rare
yr
5 -10%
<1
not present most years
accidental
x
<5%
<I
five or fewer reports in 25 years/temporally isolated reports
C -5
170
Telecommunication Towers by Tower Number
#
TMBL
PIN
Tower Owner
Address
ZIP
Permit Number
Jurisdiction
0
1
1.13..5
0808871763
Alltel
7444 BILL POOLE RD
27572
Orange County
2
1.25..1D
9887042366
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
3327 SCHLEY RD
27541
A -3 -94
Orange County
3
5.13..29
9875988072
Sprint PCS
BALDWIN RD
27278
SUP- B -1 -85
Orange County
4
4.45..33
9873786516
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
1406 OLD NC 10
27278
A -11 -93
Orange County
5
4.40.A.33
9874004474
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
181 DANIEL BOONE ST
27278
City
Hillsborough
6
3.54..6
9833549617
Crown Castle Atlantic, L-.L.C.
2408 BUCKHORN RD
27302
A -8 -89
Orange County
7
3.54..16D
9833436858
Sprint PCS
2507 BUCKHORN RD
27302
Orange County
8
6.5..11B
9852453093
Sprint PCS
4425 ORANGE GROVE R
27278
A -3 -92
Orange County
9
7.5..13E
9892847451
Sprint PCS
5001 CORNWALLIS RD
27705
A -2 -92
Orange County
10
7.24.30
9880526223
Nextel
621 PINEY MOUNTAIN R
27514
City
Chapel Hill
11
7.109F..35
9870205096
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
200
27514
SUP- B -3 -85
Carrboro
12
7.80A..4
9788377517
GTE Wireless
137 FRANKLIN ST
27514
City
Chapel Hill
13
7.100.C.33A
9778839403
Sprint PCS
515 GREENSBORO ST
27510
City
Carrboro
14
6.43..14A
9757322597
WDCG -FM
4019 JONES FERRY RD
27516
SUP- B -3 -84
Orange County
15
7.19..24F
9871503254
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
6915 MILLHOUSE RD
27516
A -1 -95
Orange County
16
3.43..13A
9834223778
Nextel
6513 HEBRON CHURCH
27302
A -2 -95
Orange County
17
3.40.F.3C
9844768882
Nextel
3716 SOUTHERN DR 1
27243
A -6 -96
Orange County
18
4.38A..1
9863495971
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
428 CATES FARM RD
27278
A -1 -96
Orange County
Page 1 of 4
Monday, May 17, 2004
N
M—A
#
TMBL
PIN
Tower Owner
Address
ZIP
Permit Number
Jurisdiction
19
5.27..14B
9883374938
BellSouth
3308 LANDAU DR
27278
A -3 -96
Orange County
20
5.25..59
0803112579
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
5904 US 70
27705
A -5 -96
Orange County
21
7.3..21
9872955304
Nextel
2103 NEW HOPE CHURC
27516
A -9 -96
Orange County
22
7.19..2A
9871850238
360 Communications
6017 MILL HOUSE RD
27514
A -12 -96
Orange County
23
5.21..29B
9884506337
Sprint PCS
1700 PALMERS GROVE C
27278
A -6 -97
Orange County
24
5.19..3B
9884625145
3412 GIBBS LN
27278
A -4 -90
Orange County
25
2.20 -1F
9869131913
EMS
624 HAWKINSRD
27231
Orange County
26
4.38.B.29
9864319480
EMS
1000 VIRGINIA CATES RD
27278
Orange County
27
7.17..42
9880267455
AIRPORT DR
27514
City
Chapel Hill
28
7.27.A.3B
9799262506
FRANKLIN ST
27514
City
Chapel Hill
29
7.54.A.1
9798295652
1011 CLELAND DR
27514
City
Chapel Hill
30
7.66..12
9798518134
100 FRIDAY CENTER DR
27514
City
Chapel Hill
31
7.108..31B
9779033547
Alert Cable
1004 OLD FAYETTEVILLE
27516
SUP- B -1 -84
Carrboro
32
4.45..22
9873657456
Piedmont Electric Membership Cor
2500 NC 86 S
27278
SUP- B -2 -84
Orange County
33
4.49.C.1
9873733084
Duke University
3314 NC 86 S
27278
app 12 -6 -82
Orange County
34
7.114.1 F
9778085910
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
625 OLD FAYETTEVILLE
27510
City
Carrboro
35
7.981.2
9778668579
Town of Carrboro
301 MAIN ST
27510
City
Carrboro
36
4.42.C.4
9863456418
Durham F.M. Club, Inc.
440 OLD SOUTH DR
27278
A -9 -94
Orange County
37
3.42..5E
9824455282
SpectraSite
520 BEN WILSON RD
27302
A -5 -97
Orange County
38
5.25..1
9893556457
AT &T Wireless Services, LLC
4800 US 70
27705
Orange County
39
7.14..1E
9871677605
SpectraSite
5214 HOMER RUFFIN RD
27516
A -6 -98
Orange County
F..:S4•,.... F' ., .•ii.
Monday, May I7, 2004
.... .::
.,. ..Mr. -. :... ,.. ...;F. � .,.. ..__
k....._ � , „._., ..:f_L ...._..: ... ., i ,,..,..: ._ ., ,.. ,s.
.,.... £ .._ ^t a._. ..... ., .. T_
.. ........ ... r -
Page 2 of 4
##
TMBL
PIN
Tower Owner
Address
ZIP
Permit Number
Jurisdiction
40
6.28..17F
9749809702
SBA
2714 NC 54 W
27516
A -3 -99
Orange County
41
6,26..17
9739640639
SBA
4907 NC 54 W
27516
A -1 -00
Orange County
42
7.9..1 K
9872624940
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
1413 NEW HOPE TRCE
27516
A -2 -00
Orange County
43
7.5..7B
9892880990
Nextel
5539 OLD HILLSBOROUG
27705
A -3 -00
Orange County
44
5.26..35C
9893433999
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
7016 MT HERMON CHUR
27705
A -5 -00
Orange County
45
4.5.A.33
9865249312
AT &T Wireless Services, LLC
918 FAUCETTE MILL RD
27278
A -1 -01
Orange County
46
1.15..2
9898482067
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
7300 NC 157 W
27572
A -5 -01
Orange County
47
2.19..5
9859836500
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
419 HAWKINS RD
27231
A -6 -01
Orange County
48
7.1..22
9862483258
American Tower
3909 RED HAWK RD
27278
Orange County
49
7.1..21A
9862482401
Duke Energy
3905 RED HAWK RD
27278
Orange County
50
4.38.B.10
9864645320
American Tower
431 DIMMOCKS MILL RD
27278
City
Hillsborough
51
4.10.6.25A
9875003602
Sprint PCS
104 US 70 E
27278
City
Hillsborough
52
2.30.7
9838147800
AT &T Wireless Services, LLC
4701 PENECOST RD
27302
Orange County
53
7.73..1
9788545304
COLUMBIA PL
27514
UNC Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill
54
7.73..1
9788545304
Nextel
MANNING DR
27514
UNC Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill
55
7.122.B.8D
9777999032
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
225 CULBRETH RD
27516
City
Chapel Hill
56
7.122.B.8D
9777999032
Crown Castle Atlantic, L.L.C.
225 CULBRETH RD
27516
City
Chapel Hill
57
6.43..15
9757213716
4215 JONES FERRY RD
27516
Orange County
58
7.45.13.7
9799261213
FRANKLIN ST
27514
City
Chapel Hill
59
7.24..19
9880127274
100 NORTHERN PARK D
27516
City
Chapel Hill
60
.2.6.3
9960362458
2611 HURDLE MILLS RD
27231
Orange County
Page 3 of 4
Monday, May 17, 2004
Fib
#
TMBL
PIN Tower Owner
Address
ZIP
Permit Number Jurisdiction
61
7.1.21A
9862482401
3905 RED HAWK RD
27278
Orange County
62
5.23.31
0804423310
4801 COLE MILL RD
27705
Orange County
63
3.20.E.1
9825327507
27302
Mebane
64
2.10 -1g
9960603784
8703 WILKERSON RD
27231
Orange County
65
6.43..23
9757113086 Alltel
4235 JONES FERRY RD
27516
Orange County
66
2.46..8X
9867230153 AT &T Wireless Services, LLC
202 LAKE ORANGE RD
27278
Orange County
67
2.43..513
9847033191
4501 MILL CREEK RD.
27231
Orange County
Monday, May 17, 2004 Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX E — Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder List
Tower Companies
Crown Castle Atlantic, LLC
150 Dominion Drive
Suite A
Morrisville, NC 27560
(919) 465 -3504
Pyramid Site Acquisition Services
4116 Redington Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 781 -7216
SBA, Inc.
401 Rogers View Court
Suite 109
Raleigh, NC 27610
STAKEHOLDER LIST
Joey Greene, Site Acquisition Specialist
Rosemary Corbin
Jason Manniello, Site Acquisition Agent
Chris Jablonski, Zoning Specialist
Annette Montgomery, Property Specialist
SpectraSite Communications, Inc. Wendy Otis
400 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 300
Cary , NC 27511
(91 9j 465 -6463
American Tower
13801 Reese Boulevard West
Suite 350
Huntersville, NC 28078
(704) 947 -7190 or (252) 561 -7954
Gearon Communications
3016 Hillsborough Street
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27607
KCI Tower Systems
387 Cornelius Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732 -1174
Bill Howard - Huntersville
David Parker — Eastern NC
Carolyn J. Briggs- Zoning Manager
GTking/rowerStakeholders E-1
175
176 Wireless Service Providers
GTE Wireless
6501 Weston Parkway
Suite 100
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 481 -6407
Sprint PCS
1357 Hembree Road
Suite 100
Roswell, GA 30076
(770) 772 -2072
Southern Bell
Forecast Office
Room 413
5715 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
Nextel Communications
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, NC 27511
(919) 461 -2100
APPENDIX E — Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder List
Attorneys for Tower Companies
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
Attorneys at Law
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612 -5515
(919) 788 -1856
Lynch & Eatman
P.O. Box 30515
Raleigh, NC 27622 -0515
(919) 571 -3332
Market Lead Attomey- Leasing
14001 Weston Parkway
Suite 106A
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 465 -4905
Scott B. Smith - Property Management
Ms. Daniels
Robert C. Ekstrand
Gray Styers
Jerry Eatman
Leslee Ruth Sharp
G:Tking/f owerStakeholders
E -2
L 1 1 Aul \Lila •.• i
Consultants
Pronet, Inc. Dick Starling
3200 Glen Royal Road
Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27612
(919) 781 -7711, ext. 116
Randy Currin
(919) 523 -8437
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. J.M. (Mickey) Williams
P.O. Box 18846
Greensboro, NC 27419 -8846
(336) 668 -0093
working with
Monroe Telecom Rusty Monroe
(518) 477 -8000
The Win Group Tim Leonard
12425 Angel Oak Drive
Huntersville, NC 28078
(704) 905 -8951
Other Agencies of.lnterest
Duke Communications Services Jeff Riggins
400 South Tryon Street
Mail Code WC29H
Charlotte, NC 28201
Orange County EMS Nick Waters
Orange County Purchasing Dept. Pam Jones
G:Tking/TowerStakeholders E - 3
177
178
179
APPENDIX F — Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies
Administrative Policy:
Te1eC3 ___ %et%n To"WerIa
This policy describes the manner in which administrative determinations are made
regarding whether or not a proposed telecommunication facility can be considered an
accessory use.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
Several definitions contained in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance are important in
determining the process by which a proposed telecommunication facility should be
reviewed. These include:
•
Radio or Television Transmitting and/or Receiving Facility: The use of land,
buildings, or structures for the above - ground transmission and/or reception of
airborne radio or television signals, including all transmitting and receiving towers,
dishes and antennas except accessory radio or television transmitting and/or receiving
antennas.
Accessory Radio or Television Transmitting and/or Receiving Antenna: An antenna
designed for the above - ground transmission and/or reception of airborne radio or
television signals, customarily incidental to _a permitted principal use, provided that
any antenna located on a zoning lot-containing a single - family or two - family dwelling
shall serve only the needs of the occupants of such dwellings.
• Accessory Use: Customarily incidental to a permitted principal or special use.
A "Radio or television transmitting and/or receiving facility" is permitted only as a
special use, and only in the following zoning districts: Community Commercial, Office
Institutional -1, -2, and -3, and Industrial. A facility of this description is also permitted as
either a principal or accessory use in a planned development. Land area requirements are
such that a tower needs to be set back from all exterior property lines at least as far as the
tower is tall. Special Use Permits are approved by the Town Council.
F -1
APPENDIX F — Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies
180
An accessory use is permitted anywhere, provided that it is "customarily incidental" to a
permitted principal use. An accessory use can be approved by the Town Manager.
Accessory antennas are subject to setback and height restrictions which create a "building
envelope" with the following exceptions:
"The following features may project above the building envelope defined
by the maximum height limitations and additional setback requirements
contained in Subsection 13.9.11 provided the Town Manager shall
determine that such features do not significantly impair the degree of solar
access provided adjacent properties through application of the appropriate
solar setback requirements.
a. Chimneys, accessory radio or television antennas, flagpoles,
monuments, or solar collectors, provided the projection of such
structures above the building envelope does not exceed fifteen percent
(15 %) of the maximum height limitation that defines the portion of the
building envelope penetrated by such structures; ..."
For property encumbered by a Special Use Permit, the Development Ordinance specifies
what may be approved as a minor change by the staff and those changes which require
Council consideration as a Modification of Special Use Permit. In addition, the terms of
the Permit may further restrict the use of the property. Design commission approval may
be required for some accessory antenna additions.
No other standards for appearance are provided in the Development Ordinance.
GUIDELINES FOR DETERNIINING "ACCESSORY"
Since adoption of a 1997 Development Ordinance text amendment, installation of
telecommunication facilities (including antennas and panels) on top of existing buildings
or towers is allowed as an "accessory use." The Town of Chapel Hill in 1997 deemed
such arrangements, and the co- location of telecommunication facilities in general, to be a
desirable alternative to construction of new free - standing towers. The Town Manager
shall use the following guidelines in determining whether a proposed telecommunications
facility can be considered an accessory use.
Accessory: In order to be considered an accessory use, a telecommunication facility must
first be clearly incidental and subordinate to the main use of a site. It cannot be of a type
or nature that dominates the site, visually, architecturally, or in terms of overall massing.
The following types of facilities, antennas, and panels are of a type that may be
considered to be accessory uses.
F-2
APPENDIX F — Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies
1. On Rooftops. Antennas, utility rooms, and panels can be placed on top of existing
buildings as an accessory use if the scale is small in comparison to the building, and
the facilities are not visually obtrusive. In addition, the 15% limit above the building
envelope, noted above, must be respected. Acceptable examples of accessory uses on
rooftops follow:
Acceptable as Accessory Use
Acceptable as Accessory Use
2. On Light Poles. Existing light poles, for example those holding parking lot lamps or
lights for athletic facilities, can be used for telecommunication facilities.. For these
telecommunication facilities to be considered accessory uses, they must not dominate
the light pole in appearance, nor contain elements that extend vertically outward from
the pole greater than ten feet. There should be no more than six panels mounted on a
pole. The size, dimensions, and texture of poles containing telecommunication
facilities should not differ greatly from nearby light poles. Further, the antennas may
not exceed 15% of the maximum height limit for the building envelope. Acceptable
examples of accessory uses on-light poles follow:
Acceptable as Accessory Use
F• 3
Acceptable as Accessory Use
181
1$2 APPENDIX F — Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies
3. On Transmission Towers. Antennas and panels can be mounted on existing
transmission poles and considered to be accessory uses, if the telecommunication
facilities do not significantly alter the appearance of the towers. Further, the antennas
may not exceed 15% of the maximum height limit for the building envelope.
Acceptable examples of accessory uses on transmission towers follow:
Acceptable as Accessory Use Acceptable as Accessory Use
4. Hidden Facilities. Any telecommunication facility that is completely hidden from
exterior view can be considered an accessory use. Examples could include facilities
within buildings or church towers.
Not Accessory: Facilities that create a dominant visual feature, separate and distinct from
the principal use of a site, cannot be considered accessory uses. Facilities on light poles
that would include more than six panels, or that would have horizontal elements that
extend more than ten feet beyond the pole itself could not be considered to be accessory
uses. Examples of facilities that should not be considered accessory uses follow:
Not Acceptable as Accessory Use
F «4
Not Acceptable as Accessory Use
APPENDIX F — Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies 183
NEW TECHNOLOGIES
As new telecommunication technologies develop, it is possible that an approach to
facility location that has not been described above may prove acceptable as an accessory
use. Additional approaches to the definition of accessory use may be added to this
administrative policy at the direction of the Town Council. .
Prepared by Chapel Hill Planning Department November, 1999
17- 5
185
APPROVED 08/1912003 MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
May 27, 2003
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in
joint session for a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the F. Gordon
Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon,
Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other
staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chair Hunter Schofield and
members Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Noah Ranells, and
Ted Triebel
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding -Ray and members
Jay Bryan, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, and Maria Tadd
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE
A. 1. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Brown said that Commissioner Carey could not be in attendance. She stated
the reasons for the public hearing. There are two school items and three planning items.
A. 2. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
B. SCHOOLS ITEM
1. Proposed Third High School In The Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools
System
John Link gave a summary of the major elements of the process that they have gone
through in looking at providing high school space for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School
system (CHCCS). In spring of 2001, the Capital Needs.Task Force made recommendations
to the Board of County Commissioners that there was a need for two elementary. schools in
the CHCCS. One school is being built at Meadowmont and the other one is Elementary
School #10. Since that time and since the voters approved the bonds in 2001, the CHCCS
board has identified alternatives for high school space. The school board is proposing the
site at Rock Haven Road. Because the voters did vote on funding for elementary schools
with the bonds, then this public hearing is to hear comments on transferring the $12.8 million
from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. He said that the County staff looks at it as
r1101
i •
an entire package and how to finance as many schools and address the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance as efficiently as possible and stay within the County's debt
requirements.
There are five elements in considering this proposal, as follows:
1. There is need for additional high school space based on projections
of future student membership
2. Comparison of CHCCS High School #3 scenarios
3. April 24, 2003 CHCCS presentation on funding High School #3
4. Unfunded County and Schools capital needs for 2003 -2013
5. Constraints on County borrowing
Budget Director Donna Dean explained why there is a need . for a third high school based on
student projections. According to projections, by 2004 -2005, the district will surpass the
110% level of service. The addition of the 1,000- student high school that CHCCS has
proposed is reflected in 2006 -2007, which will bring the number of available seats to 4,035
with a level of service at 4,439.
Assistant County Manager Rod Visser spoke about the Rock Haven Road site and
compared it to the Orange County school construction standard model. The Board of
County Commissioners is basing its funding decisions on this model. He said that the
County Commissioners adopted school construction standards in 1999 for high schools.
This occurred following a recommendation from a task force comprised of representatives of
the County Commissioners and the two school boards. The total square foot range for a
1,000- student high school is from 151,000 - 182,000 square feet. The bottom line cost
ranges from $24.7 -29.9 million. The total price tag for this site is $33.8 million. The school
system is contemplating an off -site athletic facility, which would be an additional $660,000.
Donna Dean spoke about moving the bond funds from Elementary . School #10 to High
School #3. The total funding from the original scenario was $27.8 million. The CHCCS is
recommending that the County consider borrowing an additional $6 million for High School
#3.
John Link said that the County also has other unfunded needs that it must fund —
Elementary School #10, a new central office for the CHCCS, renovations at Hillsborough
Elementary School (Orange County Schools), a new animal shelter, renovations at the
Northern Human Services Center, and the 9 -1 -1 communications plan. The Board of
County Commissioners indicated that at some point during the 2006 -2007 fiscal year, the
County would not be able to address these unfunded projects without making some hard
decisions.
Rod Visser spoke about the County's debt capacity. The County Commissioners' approved
debt management policy from May 1998 states that the County will strive to spend no more
than 15% of its general fund expenditures in any given year to retire debt on previously
issued bonds, alternative financing, etc. Orange County has an excellent bond rating. This
benefits all taxpayers. He said that the additional $6 million would not cause the County's
projected expenditures to go above the 15% level. However, with all of the additional
unfunded needs, including the additional $6 million for the Rock Haven proposal as
submitted by the CHCCS Board, it becomes a problem.
187
John Link said that in summary the staff recommends that the County Commissioners begin
making decisions as part of the 2003 -2004 budget deliberations, which will start on June
10th.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an unusual circumstance because we do not usually
change one bond and put it into another use. He said that this is an opportunity for people
who might live proximate to the proposed site of the high school to make comments on how
the school might affect their neighborhood. He said that there is no process at this time that
formally includes this opportunity for citizens to address school siting.
Commissioner Gordon wanted to make it clear that the "County Funding Scenario" is from
the Orange County staff and their recommendation is approximately $27.8 million for this
project. She said that the difference of the proposal from the standards is $4 million and the
difference from the County's proposal $6 million.
Chair Brown asked about the funding difference between the $27.8 million and the proposal
from the school system and when the lapse occurred. Rod Visser said that the main
consideration is that the site acquisition is much higher than the standards. Donna Dean
said that site development and site acquisition were the areas that affect the cost the most.
Chair Brown asked what it is about this site that would make the site development cost so
much. Rod Visser said that the topography is not very level and there are large amounts of
rock that may become a problem.
Chair Brown asked for a comment on the land acquisition. The high school standards allow
for $1.5 million for the purchase of land. John Link said that there is a possibility that one of
the sellers may not be willing to sell, which may require execution of imminent domain.
Chair Brown asked for an explanation of pay -as- you -go funds. Rod Visser said that it is
basically a stream of revenue that is received on an ongoing basis. This money is
earmarked for either school or County capital projects. The main source of pay -as- you -go
funding in the County is revenue that comes from the first two 1/2 cent sales taxes that Were
levied.
Chair Brown asked about pay -as- you -go funding for schools and how it could be used. Rod
Visser said that this money goes for long -range capital needs. The biggest ticket item is
construction of new schools. It can also go for debt financing, retiring bonds, and
renovations.
Public Comment
Terri Tyson is a mother of four children (triplets plus one) who will be entering high school
within the next five years. She asked the Board of County Commissioners to build a third
high school as soon as possible. She said that the Rock Haven Road site is clearly the best
that has been identified. She is an immediate neighbor of East Chapel Hill High School.
She feels it is very important that the next high school be built in the southern part of the
district. She does not want her children or anyone else's to attend an overcrowded school.
She said that if a smaller high school is built, the cost per seat will be much higher and
capacity will be exceeded sooner. She asked for full funding for the third high school.
442
Joseph Burgo lives in Southern Village in Chapel Hill and asked the County Commissioners
to reallocate funding from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. He supports siting the
high school on Rock Haven Road. He said that if the high school were not sited in the
south, then all of the students in the south would be bussed to the north.
Rolf Glover said that his family is the owner of the 50 acres, which is the largest parcel that
comprises the Rock Haven Road site. He said that in the middle of last year, they signed a
contract to sell this land to a developer for $3 million, and the school board appraised it for
$1.6 million. The contract was terminated when the school board voted to seek the County
Commissioners' permission to acquire the land under the rationale that the developer could
not recoup their costs of trying to get a zoning change if the land was condemned. It is his
family's feeling that the $3 million value is the true value of this land. He said that the school
board based their value on an appraisal that they had done and his family feels that this
appraisal is seriously flawed. He said that the appraisal uses three comparable purchases,
all of which are located around the Eubanks Road site. He said that the school board is
basing their appraisal on the notion that their land is not suited for a high - density
development. He said that a high school is a very high - density development. For these
reasons, they feel that this land is worth about $3 million and they intend to do whatever
they can to get this amount for the land.
Marty Mandel is a resident of Carrboro and she is opposed to the Rock Haven site. She.
said that this site will teach students that it is okay to condemn land and take it for a new
high school that would run possibly millions over budget, that it is okay to cut trees and level
land for hundreds of new parking places that add more traffic and more exhaust, and that it
is okay to build a school site on an area that is partly in the watershed. She is a former
teacher and she finds this position unconscionable and unethical. She thinks that the two
existing high schools should be expanded on a temporary basis for the proposed new
students, and the Lincoln Center should be considered. She said that the CHCCS Board
should absolutely be required to stay within budget. She said that before choosing a new
site for a high school, the school board and the County should study future school needs
that include the northern transition areas and the possibility of merger with the Orange
County Schools. She said that existing schools needed improved and repaired. She would
like to have all schools pedestrian and bicycle accessible. She said that public
transportation should be of primary focus.
Kathy Tawney was representing an endorsement by the Mary Scroggs Elementary School
Parent Advisory Committee. She read a prepared statement. This committee strongly
supports the decision to locate the third high school in the southern part of the district as
recommended by the CHCCS district and the Board of Education. She said that putting the
high school in the part of the district where it is needed and cutting down on travel risks for
the children, transportation costs, and environmental impact seems to outweigh the
immediate short-term expense involved in purchasing this site. She asked if there was any
discussion about a type of urban school and the new neo- traditional high schools that she
has heard at the Town Council meetings. Also, she would like the County Commissioners to
recognize that there was discussion about increasing development in the southern part of
the district if the school is not there. The land that is designated as a possible site will be
used for development. This is another stress added to the need for a high school. She
made reference to the comment about condemning land and being an example. She said
that land was condemned to build highways towards Pittsboro recently. She does not think
that this request is a bad example since the Town has already done it. She reinforced the
W
commitment for physical activity. She said that by putting children on school buses, their
time is limited to be physically active.
Etta Pisano asked the County Commissioners to fund the site as requested by the CHCCS
Board on the Rock Haven Road site. She said that this would save lots of time and cars
and would help the environment. She said that it is the strong feeling in the community that
the school should be big enough to serve the needs beyond a two -year limit. She said that
the money should be moved from Elementary School #10 to High School #3 because they
made a mistake when they voted for the bond and they should have .voted for a high school
instead of an elementary school. She pointed out that the Orange County 1999 construction
standards were not realistic. She said that these standards were exceeded at Cedar Ridge.
She said that this is a tough job for the County Commissioners, but that they should be able
to find the money. She does not understand why it costs $425,000 to plan an animal shelter
and another $2 million to build it. She said that she is willing to have her taxes raised. She
thinks the Manager's recommended budget is conservative. She also thinks that the debt
limit could be raised to avoid cutting services.
Michael Kelly is a citizen of Chapel Hill. He said that he will not be sending his children to
this school, but the CHCCS Board has made a clear and compelling argument to have the
third high school in the southern part of the county. He said that the two existing high
schools could not be expanded without compromising the quality of education that is
delivered. The population of Chapel Hill and Orange County supported bonds for
educational needs and this is one of them. He pointed out that the most responsible way of
decreasing the needs for transportation for a high school is to place the high school closest
to the students. He made reference to the graph on the debt limit and asked if it included all
debt or only debt that was currently due. Rod Visser said that the $113 million that he
referred to is phased in over a six -year period, through 2007 -2008:
Matthew Barton said that he was once on a bond committee and it was made clear to them
that the financing for educational needs would not be met by that one bond. He tried to
estimate how much extra mileage would be driven if the school were to be sited on Eubanks
Road as opposed to Rock Haven Road. He distributed the handout with the estimate to the
County Commissioners. Using an approximation of 3.5 extra miles each way to get to the
Eubanks Road site, the estimate was 714,000 miles of extra driving in the year. He
estimated that 600 students would be riding the bus out of the 1,000. The estimated cost of
the extra mileage would be $176,000 per year. He spoke in favor of the Rock Haven Road
site and asked the County Commissioners to approve the proposal by the CHCCS Board.
Judy Margolis submitted a petition of over 500 people to support the purchase of the Rock
Haven Road site for the third high school. She read the petition. The petition asks the
County Commissioners to vote to fully fund the Rock Haven Road site. She said that she
has been on the Eubanks Road school/park site and that there is not room there to build a
high school because it is steep, rocky, and is broken up by stream .buffers. There would be
substantial site development costs including water and sewer. She made reference to the
Glover land estimate of $3 million and said that this was based on this land being rezoned
by Carrboro. She said that she has heard that Carrboro had no intention of rezoning this
land, so it changes the value of this land. She read some comments off of the petition and
said that people are very passionate about.this.
Bobby Clapp said that it seems to him that there are three variables — timing, facilities and
location. The longer we wait on the location, the more overcrowded the current high schools
190
are going to get and the longer we wring our hands over facilities, the less likely we are to
get a good location. He thinks that there is some urgency to address the proposal. He is a
parent of three children in the CHCCS. He has no objections to shifting the bond money.
He thinks that the school should be funded at the level requested. He said that he is
disappointed that the Rock Haven site does not have the land capacity for the facilities that
should be attached to a high school, but he thinks we should move forward in a cooperative
manner. He said that he is concerned as this goes forward that the Board of County
Commissioners and the school board work in a partnership. He hopes that this does not
become a merger issue. He thinks the issue at-hand is the immediate need to plan for
short-term spaces and high school spaces for the CHCCS.
Cynthia Wheaton lives in southern Orange County and has two children in the fourth and
sixth grade. She has been following this issue for about a year and a half. She fully
supports the school board's recommendation for a 1,000- student capacity high school on
Rock Haven Road. She made reference to the budget comparisons that the staff showed
earlier. She made reference to the "total estimated cost" and she is concerned that on the
"land" line on the Eubanks Road site there is a zero. She understands that this land has
been purchased, but she thinks that to put a zero there causes confusion in comparing the
overall cost. She said that this is a personal issue for her because of the extra mileage if
her children went to Chapel Hill High School. She said that she also represents people that
could not be at the meeting tonight. She said that these families are going to benefit from a
site on Rock Haven Road because their children will get to spend more time at home. She
supports moving the money from Elementary School #10 to High School #3.
Terence Long spoke in support of locating the third high school in the southern part of the
district. He concentrated on the issue of safety and teenage driving. He quoted the statistic
that every year there are approximately two million driving- accidents involving teenagers
resulting in 6,000 deaths. Drivers between the ages of 16 -19 years old have the highest
crash rate relative to all other age groups, including the elderly. He quoted several other
statistics about teenage driving. He said that placing a high school away from where the
students are located would add to the number of miles that inexperienced drivers would
drive.
Jim Ross made reference to the zero line item for the acquisition costs for the Eubanks
Road site. He said that if the high school is built on Rock Haven then the County could sell
the Eubanks Road site or use it for some other purpose. He asked that this be accounted
for in the cost structure as a real cost for the Eubanks Road site. He said that there are
amortization costs — bus costs, insurance, gas, and asked if this has been figured into the
bar graph. He said that the existing contract has been dropped on Rock Haven Road, but it
was going to be a 264 multi - family unit building with 850 parking spaces and 500,000
square feet of impervious surface. He said that he would never pick the Eubanks Road site
for a high school because it is in the wrong place. He said that the County only wants to use
it because it owns the land.
Karen Kingsholver asked if the elected officials were aware how many of the citizens in the
south end of town feel strongly about having a high school located in this area. They know
that the Rock Haven Road site is their last resort. She urged the County Commissioners to
consider this site.
Deborah Love said that she supports the Rock Haven Road site. She said that her child
would be out of school by the time this will be built. She has to drive 45 minutes round trip
419
191
to take her child to school. She agrees that kids should be traveling to schools by foot or
bike or public transportation and this is not available with the Eubanks Road site. She
expressed appreciation to the school board and administration for the way in which they
have involved the community in this decision.
Commissioner Gordon entered into the record a letter from Chapel Hill High School
Governance Committee, which urges the Board of Commissioners to support the Rock
Haven Road site as proposed by the CHCCS Board.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - Chaired By Planning Board Vice Chair Hunter
Schofield
1. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Amend Articles 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, and Table of Contents and
other related articles to define and regulate the open burning
of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated
with permitted activity.,
Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. The first item has to do with
enabling legislation to be able to restrict open burning when it has to do with
development activity. Types of development that could be regulated include major and
minor subdivisions, zoning compliance for building permits, and land disturbing activities
requiring Erosion Control approvals. Development not regulated includes activities
relating to bona fide farms, approved forestry management plans, and burning of
domestically produced yard debris by private homeowners /tenants.
Commissioner Jacobs asked County Attorney Geof Gledhill about the definition of bona
fide farm and if it was the same definition that the State uses or if there was some
leeway. Geof Gledhill said that the enabling legislation has a definition for bona fide
farms. The special legislation that Orange County received to allow it to regulate open
burning in the permitting of developments includes things that are not in the definition of
bona fide farms such as horticulture and silviculture. Counties do not have the flexibility
to redefine the terms.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the way in which the references to the burning and
the disposition of construction debris are mentioned. He asked why we would not
mention that there is a recyclable materials recovery ordinance each time we mention
construction debris, because it regulates how the debris is supposed to be disposed of.
Craig Benedict said that he would work with Geof Gledhill to see if it can be
incorporated. He said that this is for land use and not solid waste and he will try and
cross - reference this.
Chair Brown said that she is unclear about bona fide farms and if it has anything to do
with the tax valuation of property and Geof Gledhill said no. He said that the definition of
use value taxation where the use value is based on farm is not the same definition as
bona fide farm and the prohibition against counties regulating through zoning regulations
bona fide farms. There will be some farms qualified under each and they are only
coincidentally related to each other.
4(o
192
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
a. Amend Sections 11, IV and other related sections to define and
regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris associated with the development of
subdivisions.
This item was addressed above.
b. Amend Section IV -13-10. Flexible Development — Section C,
Open Space Standards to require that at least 75% of .
residential lots in a proposed development be contiguous on
one or more sides to the system of open space.
Craig Benedict said that this is a requested amendment to the subdivision requirements
related to flexible development. Presently, the requirement for open space is 33% if the
flexible development option is used. The proposed amendment is an effort to explain more
about the functionality of the open space and the characteristics of it. He gave some
examples of subdivisions in the County and the configuration of the open space. The
intention is not to reduce the amount of lots, but to increase the accessibility of the open
space.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the 50 -foot easement. Craig Benedict said that this
would just be open space and a 50 -foot corridor would make the open space accessible
and would not encroach upon the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Gordon asked how big the path would be. Craig Benedict said that this is
not a requirement for a path to be put in. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the
language says "pedestrian access paths ". Craig Benedict said that this language could be
changed. The subdivision applicant will decide, with direction, what the 50 -foot area should
look like.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the side yard setbacks and Craig Benedict said 20 feet.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an improvement to the open space provisions. He
suggested on page 11 {- C2 — Open Space Functionality, "maintenance of wildlife habitat."
He also suggested putting some of the language in more understandable terms for the
public.
Hunter Schofield said that some high- density developments such as affordable housing
might come into conflict with these amendments. He said that we might need to look at
how we use our open space standards to help or hinder some other County priorities.
Renee Price asked about the setback requirements and open space and the impact it
would have on lower and moderate - income housing.
41
193
Craig Benedict said that they would accent this about the impacts as they move forward.
He said that in some cases the open space adds to the value of the lots and it also
supports clustering lots and could make them more affordable. Richmond Hills in Efland is
a good example of affordable housing and open space working together.
Craufurd Goodwin asked about open space in primary conservation areas and if it was
open to the general public. Craig Benedict said that there is no mandate for it to be open to
the general public. If it is a primary conservation area and it is dedicated to the public, this
will be determined during the subdivision process.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the 300 feet or less from the open space access point
and 600 feet or less. She asked Craig Benedict how he came up with these numbers.
Craig Benedict said they looked at existing subdivisions over the last four years and which
ones had good access and ones that were not meeting the goal of connectivity. He said
that they would elaborate more on some of the examples of the standards. Commissioner
Gordon just wants the staff to think about it and what it means.
Commissioner Jacobs said that since the 300 -foot and the 600 -foot standards are arbitrary
numbers based on previous experience, he suggested having some flexibility without
sacrificing the intent. Craig Benedict agreed that flexibility is important.
Public Comment - none
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to accept the Manager's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than
August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Amend Section IV -B -3. Streets, IV -13-3 -b to require that major
subdivisions have access on a paved public road.
Craig Benedict said that this amendment has to do with major subdivisions that are five lots
or more, having access to a paved road and not just a dirt road. This would not be affecting
the small subdivisions. He said that sometimes major subdivisions encroach upon a rural
area that is not prepared for development. This provision would say that the major
subdivision does not go forward until the right -of -way is available.
Public Comment - none
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to accept the Manager's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than
August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Orange County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Regulations Text Amendments
a
194
a. Amend Sections 3, 6, 6.1, and 7 and other related sections to
define and regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps
and construction debris associated with permitted activity.
This item was addressed above.
4. Orange County Telecommunications Plan
a. _Article 6.18.5, Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan "), of
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance allows for the
development of a "Master Telecommunications Plan." A
tower may be constructed upon issuance of a building permit
and after meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements for
construction of telecommunications towers. Providers
electing to participate in the Plan shall submit required
information and filing fee to the County for review by a
contracted consultant to verify site necessity. Modifications
to the Plan will be considered annually in February of each
year. Applications to participate in the Plan are due prior to
December 15 of each year. Withdrawals from the Plan are
allowed upon notification to the County.
Craig Benedict said that this has to do with telecommunications tower regulations. There
have been some changes to the class A and class B requirements for towers and to the
notification requirements. The purpose of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) is to
develop a public safety network to enhance the communication ability of the County and
the public service providers. The MTP would allow the public to participate in a pre -
identification process to offer their site to allow a tower to come on their property. This
proposal is to allow pre - identified sites to be put on the map. It does not mean that towers
will definitely go on the sites, but that the sites are possible locations for towers. There is
no special interest to these sites and these sites will still have to go through the same
public hearing process as other sites. The list also includes some potential tower sites
owned by the County. There have been about 20 private property owners who have
expressed interest in allowing their properties to be used as well as OWASA and several
voluntary agriculture districts. He said that the MTP would work in conjunction with the
existing telecommunications ordinance. As the MTP is adopted, it can be amended each
year.
Commissioner Jacobs asked how many cell tower applications were pending and Craig
Benedict said three by AT &T Wireless. One is in Bingham Township near Bradshaw
Quarry Road, one is in Cedar Grove Township near Pentecost Road, and the third is off
Lake Orange Road. .
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the going rate for a private property owner that has a
tower on their land. Craig Benedict said that it is very unique. Some information is
proprietary, where the applicant does not want their competitors to know how much they
are paying for leasing. There is a potential revenue stream for the County by using County
owned sites for towers.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he understands that there is no procedural advantage for
these properties compared to other undesignated sites, but having a map with sites implies
that the sites. are preferred. He is concerned that there should be a clear component that
N.
195
the County does not encourage cell towers where they have an adverse visual impact on
an identified natural area, recreational facility, or historic site. He would like to have a
different version of the map that identified those kinds of sites in a different color to see if
he wanted to keep them on this map. Craig Benedict said that they have narrowed down
some sites that are environmentally sensitive, etc. Commissioner Jacobs would still like to
see the color -coded map.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he is very supportive of having voluntary agriculture
districts be put on this map. He also knows that the owner can withdraw from being a
voluntary agriculture district with practically no notice, and there might need to be some
kind of arrangement with the Agricultural Preservation Board to make the voluntary
agriculture districts in the MTP a little more concrete.
Noah Ranells agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about the voluntary agriculture districts.
He said that this might be a good time to promote voluntary agriculture districts to let
farmers know that there is some benefit.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that the CHCCS has located a cell tower on the athletic field
lighting at Culbreth Middle School. He suggested asking the school system what they are
receiving as compensation. He made reference to the tower in Efland that is red and he
asked about the regulations for color. Craig Benedict said that there is review for tower
color and design. He said that with the new regulations, tower attachments are
encouraged on power transmission poles.
Public Comment:
Elizabeth Walters said that, as a member of the Farmland Preservation Board, she
supports the MTP to allow towers on farms in voluntary agriculture districts. She said that
she and her husband support this part of the plan. She said that, although a tower will'
probably never be built on their farm, a tower is needed in the northern part of the County.
She has spoken to a few farmers that have a tower on their farm and they say that the
money helps them hold onto their farms and continue to farm. She urged the County
Commissioners to support the MTP.
Bob Strayhorn is a farmer on New Hope Church Road and has a tower on his farm. He
said that they considered putting the tower on their farm because they would do anything to
keep from having to sell their land. He said that it is not the golden goose,, but it is better
than his social security. He said that the voluntary agriculture district does not offer alot
except for a commitment to the people that own the land that it will not be sold for
subdivisions. He has always thought that if there was a little more to offer people in the
voluntary agriculture districts that more people would sign up. He said that they involved
every neighbor on their road in considering the tower and no one objected to it and he let
them pick the site. He spoke in support of the MTP.
Joyce Garrett said that it is critical to maintain an environment where people can get away
from everything and see something that is not manmade. There are a lot of towers and
already present elevated structures (telecommunication towers, water towers, electrical
poles, etc.). She would like to encourage the telecommunication industry to use existing
structures. She was under the impression that this map deemed these sites as already
approved and would not necessitate notice to the adjoining landowners or to the public.
She thinks that cell towers have a larger area that is affected than 1,000 feet. She asked
ig
196
that the area of notification be broadened. She thinks that towers need to be placed away
from primary residences because of the adverse affects on the young and the elderly. She
would like for there to be consideration of natural habitat and the flight pattern of birds, etc.
in reviewing the towers. She thinks that the diagrams are hard to understand on the map
and there needs to be clear identification for adjacent property owners.
Noah Ranells pointed out to the County Commissioners that if they were interested in
promoting agriculture, it would be much nicer for farmers to see their sites listed with the
sites for consideration rather than OWASA or Duke Power.
Craig Benedict said that he has noted all of the comments and they can be addressed as
the public hearing proceeds to the Planning Board and back to the County Commissioners.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to forward this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Barry Jacobs and seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,
seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board
61
Margaret Brown, Chair
APPROVED 2/4 12003
197
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
7:30 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint
session for a public hearing on Monday, November 25, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the F.
Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners
Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon- and Stephen H. Halkiotis
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the
Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding -Ray and Vice
Chair Hunter Schofield, Jay Bryan, Barry Katz, Craufurd Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel
Preston, Howard McAdams, Jay Bryan, Maria Tadd, and Renee Price
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT%
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs asked for any comments from any of the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners are going to have to
make comments on the Long Range Transportation Plan. She is assuming that no one
else has anything more to input, but if they do, they should let her know.
Chair Jacobs turned the meeting over to the Planning Board Chair.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Chair Nicole Gooding -Ray chaired these items.
(C.1. a -e and C. 2. b — Orange County Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments
and Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments)
Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict went over the items in the
agenda abstract. He gave a history- of each item. He said that these items will not be
voted on this evening because this is a public hearing for public input. The primary topic
is the issue of growth management techniques for subdivisions.
3t
• 0
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 the 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.
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 21st 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 1a -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
GV
199
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 Runtan
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 asked 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 afire 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
1 -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.
.ss
Height Trends over Time in Orange County (1984
to 2001)
1200
1100
1000
900 Federal Telecommunications Act of
800 1996
700
=� 600
500
= 400
300
200
'100-
0 1985 1990 1995 2000
O
N
202
203
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning �� ° 306F Revere Road
(919) 245 -2575 u P O Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX), Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us North Carolina, 27278
TO: Land owners expressing interest in the Orange County, NC Master
Telecommunications Plan (MTP)
DATE: April 5, -2004
SUBJECT: Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) Public Hearing
Orange County has recently amended the current zoning regulations regarding
telecommunication towers and related facilities. In the course of amending the regulations, the
County has attempted to identify public, private, and semi - /quasi - public properties that may be
suitable for the location of telecommunication equipment (towers or antennas). The purpose
being to identify sites that, given their strategic location in relation to existing
telecommunications facilities and related infrastructure, may be suitable for the location of future
telecommunications towers or related facilities. The resulting plan is called a . "Master
Telecommunications Plan (MTP) ".
The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best locations for overall public benefit, public safety,
Emergency Management information, public service information trasfer, and limit the number of
towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such towers. Only if
property owners are interested in being part of the MTP program do they have to
participate. Many potential sites include Voluntary Agricultural Districts, fire stations,
community centers, and public lands where tower revenue could be returned to the entities that
provide benefits to the area citizens. Towers or tower antenna could be located on silos,
steeples, water tanks and be restricted by whatever the landowner prescribes, as long as it
does not exceed the general standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The County understands and feels strongly that cooperation with potential and known
stakeholders within the County is an important factor to consider, while the MTP is being drafted
and proposed. You are receiving this notice because you have expressed interest in being
inclued in the MTP. No telecommunication towers are being proposed for these sites at this
time, only that the noted sites may be supportive of an efficient pattern of future tower
placement.
A public hearing on the subject will be held on May 24, 2004, where this issue will be discussed
but not voted upon. The public hearing will begin at 7:00 P.M., and will be held in the F. Gordon
Battle Courtroom, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC. There is a possibility that
GACurrent Planning Div \Tking \MTPTowerStakeholder3.ltr 67
204
2
neighboring property owners may be concerned about the inclusion of your property, and
others, in the MTP.
I look forward to your interest and participation. If you have any questions, please call me at
(919) 245 -2592.
Sincerely
Craig N. Benedict, AICP
Planning Director
GAGurrent Planning Div \Tking \MTPTowerStakeholder3.ltr
cc: MTP File
Orange Rural Fire Department, #1
Box 549
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
White Cross Volunteer Fire
Route 1
Box 328B
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Orange Grove Volunteer Fire
6800 Orange Grove Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Lee Miller
3600 Pearson Road
Hurdle Mills, North Carolina 27541
Hurley Tate
8623 Harmony Church Road
Efland, North Carolina 27243
Victor Walters, Jr.
7119 High Rock Road
Efland, North Carolina 27243
Duke Energy Corporation
P. O. Box 16909
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
P. O. Box 366
Carrboro, North Carolina 27510
a
205
206
LETTER OF INTEREST AND INTENT IN PARTICIPATING IN THE
ORANGE COUNTY, NC MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN
I (We) hereby state my
(our) interest and intent to participate in the Orange County, NC Master
Telecommunications Plan. I (We) further understand that the signing of this statement
in no way legally binds me (us) to actually participate or have my (our) property included
within the final Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) should I (We) decide not to
participate in the MTP.
Property Owner Date
Property Owner
Property Owner
Date
Date
207
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
�, °.tr or e, ,
Administration 0 Revere Road
(919) 245 -2575 ,� s P O Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
www.co.orange.nc.us «< °
April 2, 2004
Dear Telecommunication Tower Provider;
Orange County is in the process of developing the Wireless Element of the Master
Telecommunications Plan (MTP). The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best
locations for overall public benefit, Emergency Management information, and, limit the
number of towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such
towers. We believe it is essential that the most up -to -date and accurate data form the
factual basis of the MTP.
For this reason we are requesting your assistance. Would you take a few minutes to
review the attached map and associated database? If you own a particular tower, or
have equipment on another, would you please indicate such, the height of the your
facility, the date the tower was constructed, if known, and if there are multiple users of
the tower?
Thank you for your time and the consideration, which you have given to our requests.
This information will be used during the Orange County Annual Telecommunication
Projection Meeting each winter. If you have any questions or additional information, or
wish to participate in the MTP process, please contact Mr. Glenn Bowles of the Orange
County Planning and Inspection Department by telephone at 919.245.2577 or by email
at gbowles(a)-co.orange.nc.us.
Sincerel ,
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Orange County Planning Department
cot
GACurrent Planning Division \TKing \Tower Ord\provider letter 3- 29.doc
1.��
����
grown Castle Atlantic, LLC
150 Dominion Drive
Suite A
Morrisville, NC 27560
5pectraSite Communications, Inc.
`400 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 300
ary, NC 27511
KCI Tower Systems
387 Corenlius Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Southern Bell
Forecast Office
Room 413
5715 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
Lynch & Eatman
P.O. Box 30515
Raleigh, NC 27622 -0515
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 18846
Greensboro, NC 27419 -8846
Pyramid Site Acquisition Services
4116 Redington Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
American Tower
13801 Reese Blvd. West
Suite 350
Huntersville, NC 28078
GTE Wireless
6501 Weston Parkway
Suite 100
Cary, NC 27513
Nextel Communications
.8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, NC 27511
Market Lead Attomey- Leasing
14001 Weston Parkway
Suite 106A
Cary, NC 27513
The Win Group
12425 Angel Oak Drive
Huntersville, NC 28078
43
Use template for 5 ,16u—
SBS, Inc.
209
401 Rogers View Court
Suite 109
Raleigh, NC 27610
Gearon Communications
3016 Hillsborough Street
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27607
Sprint PCS
1357 Hembree Road
Suite 100
Roswell, GA 30076
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
Attorneys at Law
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612 -5515
Pronet, Inc.
3200 Glen Royal Road
Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27612
Duke Communications Services
400 South Tryon Street
Mail Code WC29H
Charlotte, NC 28201
n0 XV E t address LaWs Izser 51600
210
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig- N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning �°` �yP 306F Revere Road
(919) 245 -2575 u " 4 P O Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) �.� Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us " °orb Coo, North Carolina, 27278
TO: Potential participants in the Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications
Plan (MTP)
DATE: May 1, 2003
SUBJECT: Solicitation of interest in participation in the Orange County, NC Master
Telecommunications Plan (MTP)
Orange County has , recently amended the current zoning regulations regarding
telecommunication towers and related facilities. In the course of amending the regulations, the
County has attempted to identify public, private, and semi - /quasi- public properties that may be
suitable for the location of telecommunication equipment (towers or antennas). The purpose
being to identify sites that, given their strategic location in relation to existing
telecommunications facilities and related infrastructure, may be suitable for the location of future
telecommunications towers or related facilities. The resulting plan is called a "Master
Telecommunications Plan (MTP) ".
The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best locations for overall public benefit and also.limit
the number of towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such towers.
Only if property owners are interested in being part of the MTP program do they have to
participate. Many potential sites include Voluntary Agricultural Districts, fire stations,
community centers, and public lands where tower revenue could be returned to the entities that
provide benefits to the area citizens. Towers or tower antenna could be located on silos,
steeples, water tanks and be restricted by whatever the landowner prescribes, as long as it
does not exceed the general standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The County understands and feels strongly that cooperation with potential and known
stakeholders within the County is an important factor to consider, while the MTP is being drafted
and proposed. You are receiving this letter because the property (properties) you own located
at
Address: 7119 High Rock Road, Efland, NC 27243
Township: Cedar Grove
Tax Map #42, Block #- -, Lot #11 & 11A
PIN: 9836 -19 -7855 & 9836 -08 -6227
GACurrent Planning Div \Tking \MTPTowerStakeholder3.ltr
D. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (BOCC and Planning
Board Public Hearings) - PLANNING BOARD CHAIR HUNTER SCHOFIELD WILL
CHAIR THESE ITEMS.
1. Master Telecommunications Plan Map — Page 135
Amend the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to Article 6.18 and Article 8.8,
and specifically Article 6.18.5, entitled "Master Telecommunications Plan ", and Article
8.8.17a, entitled "Telecommunications Towers ", to allow for the adoption of a "Master
Telecommunications Plan" Map ( "MTP ") that will identify sites within the County where
Telecommunications Tower facilities already exist and also pre- identified properties
( "Pre- identified Properties ") whose owners have expressed an interest in locating
Telecommunications Towers in the future, subject to all Orange County Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
Craig Benedict said that the Boards have seen renditions of this since April 1999. The purpose
of an MTP is to identify potential sites for telecommunications towers. Also, a pattern could be
developed that fulfills public safety needs. There are 40 to 50 sites within the County. There
are a lot of weaknesses in coverage in the County. The MTP is a guidance map with some
potential sites for public sector and private sector purposes, but they would still have to go
through the same approval process. There would be a meeting with the industry once a year to
discuss the needs for the coming year. This would provide better opportunities to co- locate.
Craig Benedict said that they have talked with the public in general about this in having public
hearings and they have coordinated with County departments. They have also developed
better coordination with the stakeholders (public sector departments and the private sector). He
showed a picture of telecommunication facilities on existing power lines. They are still
promoting this as a stealth facility. The industry has noted that they are willing to put tower
attachments on other things that are unseen (silos, bell towers, etc.). At the Economic
Development Commission meeting last week, the board voted to support the Master
Telecommunications Plan.
The staff suggests that the Board refer this to the Planning Board for the final recommendation,
to be returned back to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bob Hetterly lives on Thunder Mountain Road in Efland. He commented about the process for
the special use permit. His neighborhood was involved in a class B special use permit last year.
He entered into the record a short email that he sent to Commissioner Brown and Chair Jacobs.
He said that they went through a six -month process. He read the email. In 2003, his neighbors
were involved in opposing an application by AT &T Wireless for a special use permit to erect a
cell tower in their neighborhood. They prepared comments and went to the public hearing
before the Orange County Board of Adjustment to voice their opposition. They did not know
that their comments would be considered useless. They came to learn that this was a quasi -
judicial procedure and that they had little or no standing because they did not have legal
counsel. They felt that the granting of this application would have adverse impacts on the
values of their properties and the general quality of life in the area. The hearing was continued
to the following month and in the interim they were able to engage legal counsel; licensed real
estate appraisers, and engineers to assist in their opposition. The fees for these services
amounted to thousands of dollars. They recognize that the County has hired a professional
engineer to provide counsel and guidance regarding cell towers and they believe that this
assistance is necessary and should be necessary to the Planning Department and the Board in
the future. They think that there should be a way to more actively involve citizens who might be
impacted by the application with the experts. The bottom line is that they feel that the special
use permit application process is weighted in favor of deep - pocketed applicants and against the
citizens of the County. They feel that citizens should have a way to have their voices heard
without having to spend thousands of dollars in the process. With regard to the ordinance, they
would suggest that the requirement to notify parties about a cell tower application be expanded
beyond the 1,000 feet. He made reference to the standards for approval and said that only
looking at the contiguous properties does not appear to deal with the reality that a much wider
band of properties will be impacted. He said that considerable progress has been made over
the years with regard to the application process, but more work needs to be done.
Commissioner Brown asked how much of the report in the packet addresses the issue of
impacts on neighbors. She said that this has been a constant problem. She thought that more
of the towers were going to be brought to the County Commissioners instead of the Board of
Adjustment.
Craig Benedict said that they have made the modification that towers 150 feet and over would
go to the County Commissioners. The higher the tower, the more possibility for co- location and
the better coverage. If the towers are lower, then more towers are needed. He said that
Orange County's regulations are the most restrictive that he believes the federal government
would allow it to put forward. The 1,000 -foot notification requirement is twice what it is in other
areas. The MTP may limit the amount of random tower locations.
Commissioner Gordon asked how a property owner would get accepted into the MTP. Craig
Benedict said that if they signed a letter of intent, then it becomes part of the plan. They still
have to go through the special use process, but it becomes a guidance to show sites that are
better suited.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 153 and read, "If the Board of County Commissioners so
directs, text amendments may be considered in the future to adopt additional substantive
requirements to further address these environmental issues as they relate to the public health,
safety, and general welfare." He asked if the Board was supposed to direct the staff to make
the guidelines more operational. Craig Benedict said that this is a two -step process — step one
is adoption of the MTP and step two is further direction on the other environmental aspects.
The staff can bring back the other items in August.
Chair Jacobs said that, within the law, he would hope that if there are examples that diverge
from the Board's intentions that they would not move forward before they adopt the other
standards. Craig Benedict agreed.
Chair Jacobs said that he appreciates the effort put into the issue of what the towers do to
migratory birds. It seems clear that there is a substantial adverse impact.
Chair Jacobs asked if Emergency Services was always welcome to co- locate on a tower or if
they would have to compete with other users. Craig Benedict said that if it is on private
property, they have to compete with other users. If it is on public property and the County holds
the lease, it can set special conditions.
Chair Jacobs asked to put into the plan that Emergency Services would have an opportunity to
co- locate on towers located on County property.
Chair Jacobs said that there are also Board of Education and municipal sites and a letter may
need to be written to these entities to see if they would be willing to participate in a similar way
in terms of agreeing in advance for Emergency Services co- location.
Chair Jacobs asked if some of Mr. Hetterly's concerns could be addressed in the amendments
that come back that have to do with the general welfare. Craig Benedict said that they could
see about the notification requirements in other areas.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has a feeling that the County has as much control over this
as it does the cable TV industry which is very little control. He would like to see exactly what
has been tested and has stood the court of law.
Craig Benedict said that he could clarify the language. He said that the intent with agricultural
lands was that they were typically forested areas along with the crops and sometimes the
towers can be used as a backdrop on the fringe and not affect the farming operation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer the
Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS