HomeMy WebLinkAboutNS ORD-2002-033 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance AmendmentsORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DECISION ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 2, 2002
Action Age 4a
Item No.
SUBJECT: Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) NO
ATTACHMENT(S):
Administration Ordinance
Pg 6
Table of Permitted Uses Amendment
Pg 29a
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Recommended Changes by Planning Brd.
Pg 29b
Craig Benedict, Director, Ext. 2592
Planning Board Ordinance (Draft copy)
Pg 46
Tom King, Planner II, Ext. 2607
Proposed Schedule of Fees Amendment
Pg 67
Speakers info presented @ Public Hearing
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
and Planning Board
Minutes of August 26, 2002 Public Hearing
Pg 68
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Hearing
Pg 96
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
P
Minute of September 4, 2002 Planning
Durham 688 -7331
Board Meeting
Pg 102
Mebane 336- 227 -2031
Map of Existing Telco Towers
Pg 114
PURPOSE: To close the Public Hearing and to make a decision regarding the proposed
Telecommunication Tower (Telco) Amendments.
BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a six -
month moratorium on the processing of Special Use Permits relating to Telecommunication
Towers. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow Staff sufficient time to gather information,
work closely with the County Attorney's Office, prepare amendments and to make a
presentation at the August 26, 2002 Quarterly Public Hearing pertaining to updating /revising the
existing regulations. As the industry has been rapidly changing, so has the need to keep up to
date. The Planning Staff met twice with all interested County Departments to discuss areas of
common interest. EMS and IT, as well as other functions, have a stake in the
telecommunications amendments.
Staff held an informational meeting with telecommunication industry representatives on July 31,
2002 to receive their comments and concerns on the proposals.. Seven people attended the
meeting. Primary concerns were limiting application review to once per year, clarification of the
`existing structures' definition, drop in tower height, required inspections and fees.
On August 12, 2002, Staff held a meeting with potential participants in the Master
Telecommunication Plan ( "Plan ") program to gauge interest in the Plan. Six persons attended
the meeting. Farmers participating in the Voluntary Agricultural District program were
particularly interested in additional revenue sources to help offset rising farming expenses and
to promote sustainability. According to those farmers present, the additional income from land
leases to telecommunication providers could be the difference in continuing to farm versus
having to sell off parts of the farm to pay for rising costs and operating expenses.
2.
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the draft ordinance on August 12, 2002. That Board's
primary concern was the restriction of the telecommunication application processing to two
meetings per year. The Board felt that applications should be filed and processed on an as
needed basis so that the workflow was even rather than point loaded at specific meetings.
Some Board members questioned the need for annual inspections after a tower is approved
and constructed.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
New Provisions:
A) Height and User Amendments
1. Lowers height of Special Use Permit, Class B (less than 4 users), from 200 feet to 150
feet maximum.
2. Maintains height of Special Use Permit, Class B (4 -user minimum), of less than 200 feet
if the tower is designed and reserved for up to four users. Provides incentives and
promotes co- location on existing and proposed towers.
3. Require towers greater than 150 feet height (with less than 4 users) to be processed as
a Special Use Permit, Class A, which is processed through the Planning Board & Board
of County Commissioners.
B) An Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM) required prior to
December 31 between telecommunication providers and Planning Staff
1. Determines the telecommunication industry's needs in Orange County for the coming
year.
2. Will allow Staff and consultant to review industry needs and proposals to determine if
co- location opportunities exist on existing facilities or on proposed new towers.
3. No applications will be accepted during the following year unless the tower was
identified and discussed in the ATPM. [Exception: Unforeseen Events /Circumstances]
4. Ordinance proposes bi- annual processing of telecommunication tower applications
a. Board of Adjustment to hear cases as submitted in accordance with ATPM review
1. The ordinance has been revised to allow filing of applications at any time
provided the site was submitted and discussed at the ATPM.
b. Board of County Commissioners to hear cases at either the May or November
Quarterly Public Hearings depending on submittal date of the application.
1. The same requirements for review as exist for the Board of Adjustment.
C) Ordinance promotes co- location of antenna(s) on existing buildings, transmission
towers, utility poles, and similar structures through lower fees and Staff approval
1. Engineer's sealed drawings required prior to staff issuance of any permit for antenna(s).
2. Maximum height of antenna(s) above structure height set at twenty (20) feet.
3. Encourages stealth facilities; justification required if stealth antenna(s) is not proposed.
4. Limits any accessory buildings /structures pertaining to either tower(s) or antenna(s) to
600 square feet per user with a maximum height of 12 feet.
D) Ordinance has higher technical standards for tower review at both the Special Use
Permit and the Building Permit application stages
1. As a result of higher technical standards the County will need to contract with a
telecommunication consultant for technical expertise regarding telecommunication
towers. (Board comments noted this need previously.)
E) Requires periodic inspections and engineer certifications on existing towers
1. Major inspections to be performed by a structural engineer every thirty -six (36) months,
except in cases where a tower site has no structures, other than those associated with
the tower, that are located within the tower's fall zone, or at the time of a co- location,
with a report to be submitted to the Inspection Division.
2. Minor inspection (visual) to be performed yearly by the County's consultant or a properly
trained Inspection staff member.
3. Requires structural analysis of existing towers within 12 months of the effective date of
the ordinance.
F) Master Telecommunication Plan ( "Plan ") Note: The revised telecommunication
ordinance only creates a `place holder' for the eventual adoption of a Master
Telecommunication Plan that will plug into the approved ordinance.
1. New provision will create the opportunity for the BOCC to consider a two -phase
approval process for towers less than 200 feet in height. The Plan works as follows:
a. Initial Plan participants request to be included in the Plan (private, public, quasi -
public and public interest lands may be available to develop an efficient grid
system).
b. The Planning Staff will notify adjoining owners in accordance with ordinance
provisions and the Plan will proceed to quarterly public hearing.
c. Advocates and opponents of the Plan will be afforded the opportunity to speak on
behalf of or in opposition to the Plan.
d. After Planning Board recommendation, the BOCC will have final approval authority
on the Plan.
e. If the Plan is adopted, telecommunication providers shall meet the same
performance evaluation standards for a building permit as they currently meet in the
Board approval process.
f. Additions to the Plan will only be considered annually (proposed at the February
Public Hearing). A fee to cover advertisement and administrative processing (legal
ad, mailing, etc) is proposed.
g. Withdrawal from the Plan can be accomplished by submitting a notarized statement
from the owner(s) that requests that their property be withdrawn from the Plan.
G) Special Use Permit standard revisions
1. Defines overall policy and desired goals for Special Use Permits for telecommunication
towers.
2. Set distance requirements between towers
a. '/z mile separation required; no separation requirement in current ordinance
b. Unforeseen events defined and allows flexibility by Director within parameters
3. Increased the search ranges that applicant has to justify in order to place a new tower
a. From %Z mile to 1 mile for towers less than 150 feet height and shorter
b. From 1 mile to 2 miles for towers greater than 150 feet height
4. Requirement of a balloon test with certified notification requirement by applicant to all
property owners within County's required notification range
5. Provision for the requirement of an Environmental Assessment Analysis (if deemed
necessary) and Visual addendum. Provision for submittal of a Visual Impact
Assessment to aid in evaluation of proposed tower's visual intrusiveness
4
H) Fee Schedule Modification
1. New fees are set forth in a separate ordinance attachment included as apart of this
packet.
2. The Master Telecommunication Plan and the consultant review system was
discussed at the September 3, 2002 BOCC meeting.
PROCESS:
First Action: The Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2002. The BOCC recommended that
the amendments be referred to the Planning Board at their September 4, 2002 monthly meeting
for a recommendation to the BOCC no sooner than September 17, 2002.
Main Issues at the Public Hearing:
1) fall zone requested to be increased to 110% of tower height
a. The proposed ordinance has been amended
2) light visibility from adjacent properties and upward glare prohibited
a. The proposed ordinance has been amended.
3) balloon test notification to adjoining properties certification required from applicant
a. The proposed ordinance has been amended.
4) sign posting of site for balloon test date, times to be required in new ordinance
a. The proposed ordinance has been amended.
5) Annual Telecommunication Projection Meeting (ATPM)
a. allows Class A & B applications to proceed to provided ATPM was considered for
the site
b. Class A SUP applications to be considered at May and November quarterly public
hearings, Class B SUP applications to be considered as necessary
6) perimeter buffers enhanced
a. The proposed ordinance has been amended.
7) industry concerns addressed to the extent recommended
a. dropped twice yearly meeting of Board of Adjustment from recommendation
b. recommend allowing subsequent major inspection dates to be calculated from
date of a co- location or prior to certificate of occupancy, whichever is greater.
c. clarified 'existing structure' definition
d. added provision for 'Unforeseen Events' for defined situations
e. recommend reducing the application fees and setting up an escrow
f. staff does not recommend opening up the ATPM to more than once per year
g. staff does not recommend processing all SUP's at Board of Adjustment level
Second Action: The Ordinance Review Committee heard the amendments on September 4,
2002. The Committee recommended that the entire Planning Board make a recommendation.
Third Action: The Planning Board heard the amendments on September 4, 2002. The main
issues discussed at the Planning Board meeting are as follows:
1) Recommended that 'Unforeseen Events' be clarified to state that unanticipated
circumstances may allow review of towers not submitted at the ATPM. Also, clarified
that towers could be retrofitted in accordance with ordinance requirements.
2) Recommended revision of Section 6.18.2(d) (2) to add '6.18` to clarify the reference
to 'this section'.
3) Recommended that utility provider language be inserted to allow co- locations on
utility poles within public right -of -way.
4) Added language to Section 6.18.4 to require that towers be minimally visually
intrusive.
5) Added provision to require lightening rods to be included in the determination of
maximum height.
6) Recommended amending Section 6.18.4(f)(2)(a) to remove provision for 36 -month
inspections if a fall zone is provided.
7) Requires trained staff member or consultant to perform annual visual inspections.
8) Recommended amending Section 6.18.4(f)(5)(e) to remove provision that a North
Carolina Registered Professional Engineer certifies that the tower meets current
standards by replacing current with originallinitial status if the tower is less than six
years old.
9) Master Telecommunications Plan not required but o tional at BOCC discretion.
10) Recommended adding language setting criteria and clarifying the exceptions to the
Y2 mile spacing limitation between towers.
11) Clarifies that balloon test cannot be used as a criteria to deny a SUP but only can be
used to assist in the reduction of visual intrusiveness.
12) Added provisions to minimize light diffusion from site.
13) Amended ordinance to define 'Fall Zone'.
14) Recommended reducing the application fees to $2,500 for Class A SUP and $1,500
for Class B SUP and to require an escrow account from which consultant's review
fees are paid, with residual amounts returned to the tower owners. Initial amounts of
the escrow to be $7,500 for Class A SUP and $7,000 for Class B SUP.
15) Added language that exclusion of co- locators from towers is not permitted and that
the consultant will advise the County regarding exorbitant market rate leases.
16) Adds section to ordinance to require the establishment of an escrow account.
The Planning Board voted 5-4 to approve the entire ordinance, with the amendments. The four
members in opposition to the entire ordinance expressed concern about the development of the
Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP), which does not go into effect with this Ordinance
amendment. The MTP is being investigated and formulated by a multi - departmental task force
that includes IT, EMS, Purchasing, Budget, ERCD, Planning and stakeholders (such as
Agricultural District landowners, and volunteer fire departments) that may be part of the MTP
system. The MTP section of this ordinance will not be used until a Public Hearing is held, a
recommendation provided by the Planning Board and adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners. Any actions associated with the MTP will be subsequent to the adoption of this
ordinance and do not affect the validity or enforceability of these telecommunications ordinance
amendments.
Fourth Action: Board of County Commissioners to make a decision within a reasonable time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public fiscal impact related to this decision.
RECOMMENDATION: Administration recommends Approval of the telecommunication
ordinance as revised by the Planning Board with the exception #8
above. See page 19 Subsection e. in the Administration Ordinance
for the recommended language. Administration recommends
Approval of the amendment to the Orange County Schedule of fees
(page 67).
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 6
Bold = New Language
Bold Underlined = Language Changed or Added During Public Hearing Period
StFikethMwgh = Existing Language Deleted
= New Language Removed During Public Hearing Period
Italics or itallss = New Language Added /Changed based on Planning Board Recommendation
Bold = Additional Language Added by Staff During Public Hearing Period
= Language Changed /Added During Public Hearing Period
Deleted
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. (page 14- 3)-- Specifications for Plan Preparation —Amend Section 14.2.3 by adding
the following subsection to read as follows:
t. The names of all property owners adjacent to, and across the street from,
the proposed project shall be shown on the site plan.
Section 2. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table -- -Amend PI 7A to read Telecommunications
Towers 150 Feet in Height or Shorter
Section 3. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table —Amend to add P1 7B Telecommunications
Towers shorter than 200 feet (4 carriers)
Section 4. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table- -Amend P1 7B to read P1 7C Telecommunications
Towers Greater than 150 Feet in Height
Section 5. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table —Amend P1 7C to read PI 7D Stealth
Telecommunications Towers -
Stealth (75 feet in Height and Shorter)
Section 6. (page 8 -3) Amend Section 8.4.1 (Pre - Application Conference) to read as follows:
a.1 Prior to the application being received as prescribed in Article 8.4.2, the
applicant must request a pre - application meeting with the Orange County
Planning Department. A sketch plan illustrating the location, size and major
design elements of the development of the site must be submitted five (5)
working days prior to the pre - application meeting. The Planning Department
may request that representatives of other public agencies be present at the
pre - application meeting. These agencies may shall include, but not be
limited to, the Orange County Planning Board, the Orange County
Recreation Department, the Orange County Health Department, the
municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Durham, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and Orange Water and Sewer
Authority.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE
bZ Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM) P+e-
AppliGatien GenfeFeRGes Related T T 1 a• a
1) Prior to the acceptance of any applications for Telecommunications
Towers, a pFe- appl+safien plan indicating proposed search areas
shall be submitted to the Zoning Officer on or before
December 31" of each year. The purpose of the ATPM is pFe-
to allow for a complete review of co-
location opportunities and address coverage issues After all site
Plans or search area plans are received an ATPM shall be
scheduled by the Planning Department Staff during the month of
January with the providers. New applications for Class A Special
Use Permits for telecommunications towers will be reviewed twice
per year at the County Commissioners' May and November Public
Hearings. New applications for Class B Special Use Permits for
telecommunications towers will be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment in accordance with the published Board of Adjustment
meetina schedule revided. No application will be considered
unless the proposed site was identified on either the site plan or the
search area plan shown at the ATPM.
meet"Rgs:
—each
2) Formal applications for the May and November Public Hearings by
the County Commissioners, and the APF41 and GetebeF meetings of
the Board of Adjustment, shall be submitted in accordance with the
published yearly calendar of meetings schedule.
3) Exceptions to the ATPM requirement as it applies to a particular site
may w444 be allowed in the case of unforseen events as defined in
Section 6.18. The ATPM meeting May W:—;—,provided the
applicant shall submit documentation for review by the Orange
County Development Review Committee (DRC) that such a waiver is
necessary. The DRC shall make a determination on the waiver
request and notes the applicant within a reasonable time period
As of the effective date of this Ordinance amendment, any pending
applications that have not received a zoning compliance permit or a
special use permit shall meet all requirements of this Ordinance,
including, but not limited to submission deadlines, application
standards and processing, excluding the ATPM requirement.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE
Section 7. (Page 6 -25d) Amend Section 6.18 to read as follows:
6.18 Telecommunications Towers and Equipment Fasif+tles
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Accessory Use — A use incidental to, subordinate to, and subservient to the
principal main use of the property. As defined in this section an accessory
use is a secondary use.
Antenna — A transmitting and /or receiving device used for wireless
services, that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves, including
directional antennas, such as panel and microwave dish antennas, and
omni - directional antennas, such as whips, excluding radar antennas,
amateur radio antennas and satellite earth stations.
Building Code — The most recently adopted or amended edition of the
North Carolina State Building Code.
Co- location — Locating telecommunication WiFeleSS
equipment for more than one provider on one qualified shared facility
StFUGtUFe at one site.
Commercial Impracticability or Commercially Impracticable — The inability
to perform an act on terms that are reasonable in commerce; the cause or
occurrence of which could not have been reasonably anticipated or
foreseen and that jeopardizes the financial efficacy of the project. The
inability to achieve a satisfactory financial return on investment or profit,
standing alone, shall not deem a situation to be commercially impracticable
and shall not render a requirement of this ordinance commercially
impracticable.
EIA -222 — Electronics Industries Association Standard 222 (Structural
Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Support Structures).
Existing Structure /Building — For purposes of this Section, any building or
structure that is currently existing on a parcel of land. Such structures
may include, but shall not be limited to, telecommunications towers,
overhead transmission line support structures, water tanks, silos,
churches, schools, and utility poles.
Extraordinary Conditions — Conditions subsequent to a hurricane, flood,
tornado, or other natural or other disaster.
FAA — The Federal Aviation Administration.
FCC — The Federal Communications Commission.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 9
Fall Zone — The circular area measured from the base of the tower outward
in a circular pattern (radius) for a distance of 110% of the proposed or
existing tower's height including lightening rod. Telecommunications
towers shall not be located on property where the proposed tower's fall
zone will encroach on a residential, buildable, lot.
Guyed Tower — A telecommunication tower that is supported, in whole or in
part, by guy wires and ground anchors.
Inspections Division — The Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ") — A plan developed for Orange
County by the County's Planning Department that sets forth properties that
have received general zoning approval from the County Commissioners for
the placement of telecommunications towers less than 200 feet in height
provided that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations are met.
PFOASIen G( . OIe
MleFewave — Microwave dish antenna: A dish -like antenna used to link
wireless service sites together by wireless transmission of voice or data.
Monopole Tower - A telecommunication tower consisting of a single pole
or spire self supported by a permanent foundation, constructed without
guy wires and ground anchors.
Panel Antenna — An inconspicuous, relatively flat, square or rectangular
antenna designed to be affixed to the wall of a building or structure in order
to receive and transmit signals from a telecommunication device.
Qualified Shared Facility — A telecommunication tower or existing
structure /building faeility that is appropriately designed for sharing
antenna space, and grants space on the tower faelllty in a fair, reasonable,
and non - discriminatory manner.
Roofline — The overall ridge line of the structure, not including cupolas,
elevator towers, clock towers or other similar features.
Search Area — An area or areas defined on a map or maps showing the
maximum extent of locations suitable for the installation of an individual
telecommunications provider's facilities (tower or antenna co- locations).
Self- Support/Lattice Tower — A tapered structure broad at the base and
more narrow at the top consisting of cross - members and diagonal bracing
and without guyed support.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 10
Stealth or Stealth Technology — Technology or practice intended to
minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property,
buildings, and other equipment adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally
the same area as the requested location of such wireless
telecommunications towers and equipment, which shall mean using the
least visually and physically intrusive tower and /or equipment that is not
technologically or commercially impracticable under the facts and
circumstances.
Stealth Facility — Any stealth telecommunication tower or equipment fasilityF
which is designed using stealth technology to blend into the surrounding
environment. Examples of stealth facilities include architecturally
screened roof - mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural
elements, and telecommunication and /or personal wireless services towers
designed to look like light poles, power poles or trees.
Telecommunication Equipment FasilityF — Equipment
eqE which is located either upon a telecommunication tower or a
structure and which includes some form of antenna for the purpose of
transmitting and receiving wireless services.
Telecommunications Tower — A guyed, monopole or self- support/lattice
tower, constructed as a free - standing structure containing one (1) or more
antennas, used in the provision of wireless services excluding radar
towers, amateur radio support structures licensed by the FCC, private
home use of satellite dishes and television receiving antennas and satellite
earth stations installed in accordance with applicable codes.
Telecommunications Tower, Stealth — A telecommunication tower designed
using stealth technology such that its whose primary purpose is, or
visually appears to be, something other than the support of
telecommunications equipment, the apparent purpose of the tower is
customarily considered as accessory to a use that is allowed in the zoning
district, and the structure and its primary use comply with the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance.
Unforeseen Events — Condemnations of existing telecommunications
towers for road projects, casualty of existing telecommunications towers
blocking of signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of a
telecommunication tower, or the need to replace an existing
telecommunication tower for capacity issues or for other reasons deemed
necessary by the County Planning Director or his/her designee.
Whip Antenna — A cylindrical antenna that transmits and /or receives
signals in three hundred sixty (360) degrees.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 11
6.18.1 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunications towers and
Telecommunication Ge4esa#e -n- Equipment
New stealth telecommunications towers up to 75 feet in height, which are
sufficiently disguised so as to minimize visual impact, may be approved
administratively by the Planning Staff provided that all of the provisions contained
in Article 8.8.17a are met.
use whish is allowed 6A the zening diStF;Gt*; and the StFuetWe and its
The placement of telecommunication equipment on existing structures may be
approved administratively as provided for in this ordinance. that the equipment
10,0; ef the height 9
6.18.2 Telecommunications towers and equipment #aggifies as principal or
accessory uses
a) Telecommunications towers, , ineluding menepele and stealth
shall be permitted as a principal or an accessory use in all districts
in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance eF as follows:
1) On property owned by the County or any public entity
except those designated as historic properties or sites. The
County shall may, in its sole discretion as the owner of the
property, authorize the application and use of County
property after the applicant executes a lease agreement
acceptable to the County.
2) b) Telecommunications towers as part of existing utility poles
shall be permitted as an accessory use. Towers shall be
constructed as part of the existing utility poles or as
replacements for the existing utility poles. No freestanding
towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless
services shall be permitted within utility easements.
3) e4 The placement of a new telecommunications tower in any
zoning district must be approved as a Special Use, except
as permitted in the Master Telecommunications Plan
( "Plan ").
b) elj Existing Telecommunications towers
1) Telecommunications equipment aRteFinas as accessory
uses may be placed on existing towers in accordance with
the provisions of this Ordinance.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 12
2) Notwithstanding the above provisions of this Section 6.18,
telecommunications towers in existence as of
(date of Ordinance adoption), may be
replaced with a tower of equal or less visual impact after
approval by the County Planning Director or his /her
designee. However, if the proposed new tower would not be
consistent with the minimum standards under this Section
6. 18, replacement must be approved as provided for in this
Ordinance.
6.18.3 Antennas not located on telecommunications towers.
a) Antenna types. Antennas shall be peMitted on e**st*Fmj
To
minimize adverse visual impacts, stealth antenna types shall be
preferred. If a non - stealth antenna is proposed, the application
shall be required to demonstrate, in a technical manner acceptable
to the Planning Director or his /her designee, why the stealth
antenna (i.e. an antenna incorporated into the architecture of the
building or fully screened from view from sight proximate to the
antenna) cannot be used for the particular application. This does
not preclude a combination of the various types of antennas.
1) Antenna dimensions. Antenna dimensions shall be subject
to approval feviewed by the Planning Director or his/her
designee . A statement
shall be submitted, prepared by a professional engineer
competent to evaluate antenna choices, to certify the
technical need for the required dimensions.
b) Aircraft hazard. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the
Inspections Depakmeni Division, the application shall provide
evidence that the telecommunication tower or antennas are in
compliance with FAA regulations. Where an antenna will not
exceed the highest point of the existing structure upon which it is
to be mounted, such evidence shall not be required.
C) Stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas not exceeding twenty
(20) feet above roofline of the building or support structure shall be
permitted in all zoning districts subject to the
provisions of Section 6.18.3 d) 1 -5 stated below.
d) Building or rooftop stealth antennas shall be subject to the
following minimum standards:
1) No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna;
2) No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on an
antenna, unless required by the FCC or the FAA;
3) Any related unmanned equipment building shall not contain
more than six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area
per user or be more than twelve (12) feet in height;
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 13
4) If the equipment building is located on the roof of the
building, the area of the equipment building shall not
occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area,
and shall comply with all State of North Carolina Building
Code requirements for the proposed and existing building;
and
5) Approval of the Planning Director or his /her designee to
ensure consistency with the definition of stealth facility is
required. Each application shall contain a rendering or
photograph of the antenna including, but not limited to,
colors and screening devices.
e) Non - stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas shall only be
permitted not exceeding twenty (20) feet above the roofline of the
subject building or support structure and subject to the procedure
and requirements provided elsewhere in this Section ehaptef.
Building rooftop non - stealth antennas shall be subject to the
following minimum standards:
1) Antennas shall only be permitted on buildings or structures
that are at least fifty(50) feet tall. Antennas may be placed
on buildings less than fifty (50) feet tall if public safety
needs warrant the antenna;
2) Antennas, and related equipment buildings, shall be located
or screened to minimize the visual impact of the antenna
upon adjacent properties and shall be of a material or color
which matches the exterior of the building or structure upon
which it is situated;
3) No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna;
4) No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on an
antenna, unless required by the FCC or the FAA;
5) Any related unmanned equipment building shall not contain
more than six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area
per user or be more than twelve (12) feet in height;
6) If the equipment building is located on the roof of the
building, the area of the equipment building shall not
occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area,
and shall comply with all State of North Carolina Building
Code requirements for the proposed and existing building;
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 14
7) Antennas may be located on poles
owned or controlled by the Count/ or by a utility provider
governmentally ftanehised utility poles (if appileable) G
poles GWRed by the Geu*ty pursuant to the following
regulations:
a) The maximum height of the pole with antenna of
d" shall not exceed seventy (70) feet in height; and
b) The utility poles shall be located on public property,
within public easements, or public rights -of -way.
C) The antenna afldief d+s# shall be of a size and
placement that is structurally compatible with the
engineering design of the pole pursuant to the North
Carolina State Building Code and attested to by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of North
Carolina
design, and competent to evaluate antenna choices.
d) The antenna GF dishes shall not extend more than
ten (10) feet above the existing pole height. If the
pole is replaced to withstand the addition of
telecommunications equipment, then the same
restriction shall apply except that the utility pole
may be twenty (20) feet higher than the adjacent pole
heights.
e) Placement of an antenna and/er-a -d on a utility
pole shall only be on poles owned or operated by a
public utility authorized to operate in the County, a
County franchisee, or Orange County.
Q All relocation costs associated with any relocation
of the antenna necessitated by roadway or sidewalk
improvements shall be borne by the
telecommunications provider.
f) Fees.
1) A filing fee as set by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners shall be paid upon application for a
Building Permit, Site Plan approval, or Special Use Permit.
In addition, an inspection fee is due the County at the time
of future inspections.
2) An engineering permit fee shall be paid if a pole is replaced
to accommodate telecommunications equipment.
3) Public land or right -of -way lease agreements will be
established by separate instrument.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 15
6.18.4 Minimum Standards for Telecommunications towers.
All telecommunications towers must meet the following minimum
standards:
a) Prior to the issuance of a Building /Electrical Permit by the
Inspections Division, a site development plan shall be
presented for approval to the Planning Division. Each
application for a proposed telecommunications tower shall
include all requirements for site development plan approval
as required. Approval of the Planning Director or his /her
designee to verify consistency with the definition of stealth
facility is required. Each application shall contain a
rendering or photograph of the tower including, but not
limited to, colors and screening devices.
b) All telecommunications towers shall be placed in heavily
wooded areas on the site to the maximum extent possible
so as to lessen the visual intrusiveness of the structure and
accessory structures. A statement shall be submitted by
the applicant stating how the proposed tower will fmt be
minimally visually intrusive to surrounding properties in the
area. Criteria that may be used for such evidence may be
height and We of existing trees surrounding the proposed
tower, and local topograft.
C) A statement shall be submitted, prepared by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina GeFti ;ed on
which through rational
engineering analysis, certifies the tower's compliance with
applicable standards as set forth in the State of North
Carolina Building Code, and any associated regulations;
and describes the tower's capacity, including an example of
the number and type of antennas it can accommodate.
d) Applicants shall provide:
1) the existing cell sites (latitude, longitude, power levels)
to which this proposed site will be a handoff candidate,.
2) a Radio Frequency plot indicating the coverage of
existing sites, and that of the proposed site,
3) the search area utilized in finding the proposed site,
4) antenna heights and power levels of proposed site, and
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 16
5) a written affidavit stating why "the proposed site is
necessary for their communications service" (e.g., for
coverage, capacity, hole - filling, etc.) and a statement
that there are no existing alternative sites within the
provided search area and there are no alternative
technologies available which could provide the
proposed service enhancement without the tower.
a) County staff will utilize the services of a registered
professional engineer to confirm the statement
made in item 5) above. No tower shall be permitted
to exceed its designed loading capacity. For all
towers attached to existing structures, the statement
shall include certification that the structure can
support the load superimposed from the tower. All
towers shall have the capacity to permit multiple
users; at a minimum monopole towers shall
accommodate two (2) users and self- support/lattice
or guyed towers shall, at a minimum accommodate
three (3) users.
el Standards of evaluation.
1) Tower height shall be measured from the base of the
tower to the highest point of the proposed
antenna(s), with lightening rod, to be located atop the
tower structure.
2) Telecommunications towers shall conform with all of
the requirements of Sections 8.8.17a.1a (a-g) and
8.8.17a.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3) All towers shall be engineered to allow for co-
locations. No co- locator shall be refused access for
co- location by charging exorbitant lease fees.
Public safety co- locations shall take priority over
other co- locators.
4) A tower consultant shall provide Staff assistance on
exorbitant rate leases.
-0 Tower Inspection.
1) Telecommunication tower owners shall submit a
report to the County Inspections Division certifying
structural and electrical integrity upon completion of
the initial construction and at intervals as specified
in this Section
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 17
2) Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner
and made available upon request to the Inspections
Division during regular business hours.
a) The following inspection schedule shall be
followed except in cases where a tower has no
structures other than those associated with
telecommunication tower use located within the
tower's fall zone. At least once every thirty -
six (36) months, or thirty -six (36) months
from the date of a co- location approval, a
structural engineer who is regularly involved
in the maintenance, inspection and /or
erection of telecommunications towers shall
inspect the tower and submit a report
submo ted to the Inspections Division within
a reasonable time thereafter. At a minimum,
this inspection shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance and in accordance with the tower
inspections check list provided in the EIA-
222 (as amended from time to time). This is
considered a major inspection review.
b) At least once every twelve (12) months, a
visual inspection from the ground shall be
conducted by a properly trained staff
member of a tower provider or tower
consultant and a report shall be filed with the
Inspections Division within a reasonable
time thereafter. This inspection shall include,
but shall not be limited to, visual inspection
of tower foundations, structures, guys, and
connections for evidence of settlement or
later movement; soil erosion; condition of
paint or galvanizing; rust or corrosion, loose
or missing bolts, loose or corroded lightning
protection connectors; tower plumbness,
significant variation in guy sags (i.e.
tensions), and other material areas or
matters relating to the.structural integrity of
the tower. This is considered a minor
inspection review.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 18
C) In addition to the regularly scheduled major
and minor inspections set forth in
paragraphs 1) and 2) above, a minor
inspection, at a minimum, will be conducted
if the tower or its appurtenances are noted at
any time to be visibly damaged.
Additionally, a major inspection shall be
conducted if the visible damage to the tower
is significant or when, after conducting a
minor inspection, significant questions
remain about the structural integrity of the
tower.
3) The Inspections Division may conduct periodic
inspections of telecommunications towers to ensure
electrical integrity. The owner of the
telecommunication tower may be required by the
County to have more frequent inspections should
there be reason to believe that the electrical integrity
of the tower is jeopardized. The County reserves the
right to require additional inspections if there is
evidence that the tower has a safety problem or is
exposed to extraordinary conditions.
4) Structurally Unsafe or Unused Towers. Any tower
found, through inspection by the owner or by
inspection of the Inspections Division, to be
structurally unsafe and cannot be brought into
compliance within 180 days shall be removed at the
owner's expense.
5) Compliance with Standards. Current or former EIA
standards shall apply to the addition of antennas or
other appurtenances to communications towers
under the following conditions:
a) Additions to towers constructed prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance, regardless
of whether the additions are accounted for in
the original design, shall comply with the
current EIA standards, and the wind loading
specified therein. Additions to towers
constructed subsequent to the effective date
of this Ordinance shall comply with
standards set forth elsewhere in this Section.
b) Existing towers, which will not have any
appurtenances added to them shall at a .
minimum comply with the EIA standards in
existence at the time the tower was erected.
C) Replacement of antennas or other
appurtenances shall at a minimum comply
with the EIA standard in existence at the time
the tower was erected if the replacement'
does not add to the original design loading.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 19
d) If a structural analysis shows a tower is not
in compliance with the appropriate EIA
standards, the owner shall submit an
application to the Inspections Division with a
plan to bring the tower into compliance
within six (6) months.
e) Analysis of Existing Towers. Within twelve
(12) months of the effective date of this
Ordinance an analysis by a North Carolina
Licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.
Analysis) shall be performed on all towers in
excess of 100 feet in height and shall be
submitted to the Inspections Division. The
analysis shall determine the tower's
compliance or lack thereof with the EIA
standard in effect at the time the tower was
constructed and when the most recent
structural loading change was made. For all
towers less than six (6) years old, a current
existing P.E. analysis of the tower may be
submitted in lieu of the new P. E. analysis
required above. If the tower does not meet
the aforementioned EIA standards, the letter
or existing P.E. analysis shall include the
types of modifications that would be
required to bring the tower up to standard.
All existing towers shall be subject to the
annual electrical inspection conducted by
the Inspections Division including any
associated inspection fees.
1) The Inspections Division shall be
notified in writing when a required
analysis is complete. A copy of the
analysis report shall be made
available to the County Inspections
Division upon request. That report
shall also give details of the net
result of any changes made to the
tower or its appurtenances since the
last inspection.
6) Fees and charges.
a) A filing fee as set by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners shall be paid upon
application for a Building Permit, Site Plan
approval or Special Use Permit. In addition,
an inspection fee is due the County at the
time of future inspections.
b) Public land or right -of -way lease agreements
shall be established by separate instrument
and recorded prior to the issuance of
Building Permits.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 20
91 Escrow Account. An escrow account of an
amount determined. by the Board of County
Commissioners shall be paid by check to
Orange County upon filing of a
telecommunication tower application. The
account shall be drawn upon to pay
associated consultant review fees during the
review process. Any unused funds in the
- account after the approval of the Certificate
of Occupancy (CO) shall be returned to the
designated party.
6.18.5 Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan"
As an alternative to the foregoing provisions, an applicant for a wireless
new telecommunication facility tower less than two hundred (200) feet in
height may elect to participate in the Orange County Master
Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan "). The County shall may develop a plan
which specifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a
wireless telecommunications tower facility by seeking issuance of a
Building Permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan.
The Plan shall be presented at a quarterly public hearing. After the
quarterly public hearing, the Plan will be presented to the Planning Board
for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. If adopted,
the applicant may apply for necessary Building Permits on properties
approved in the Plan. Properties approved in the Plan shall not be subject
to an additional, separate public hearing process on any proposed
telecommunication tower facility included in the Plan. Applicants will be
required to meet all Ordinance requirements and shall pay a site plan
approval and building application fee as provided for in the Orange County
Schedule of Fees.
a) Information to be provided. All telecommunication
providers who elect to construct on properties approved in
the Plan shall provide all necessary and requested
information to the County's telecommunications consultant.
Such information shall include that set forth in this
Ordinance, for each telecommunications site which it
currently operates within the County, as well as each site
which it reasonably believes it will require within the County
for the next five (5) years.
b) Plan modification. Modifications to the Plan shall be
considered annually at the February Quarterly Public
Hearing. Any applicant requesting modification of the Plan
shall make application to the Zoning Officer on or before
December 15th daflaayfa-0' of each year. The fee for annual
modification of the Plan shall be that as set forth in the
Orange County Schedule of Fees.
C) The County shall use signal propagation methods and
professional engineers qualified in this discipline and
assure compliance with all federal, state, and local
regulations.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 21
d) All sites specified in the Plan shall be deemed permitted
sites for the construction of wireless telecommunications
towers without the necessity of further public hearing. For
those sites specified on the Plan which are on property
owned or controlled by the County (regardless of zoning
classification), the applicant shall, prior to seeking a
Building Permit for such use facility, negotiate and execute
a lease agreement with the County for such site upon terms
and conditions which are acceptable to the County.
e) Withdrawal from the Plan. Withdrawal from the Plan is
permitted by submitting a notarized statement requesting
withdrawal from the Plan
Section 8. (Pages 8 -21 to 8 -24) Amend Section 8.8.17a to read as follows:
8.8.17a Telecommunications towers
Overall Policy and Desired Goals for Special Use Permits for
Telecommunications towers. Promoting and encouraging, wherever
possible, alternatives to constructing new towers, including but not limited
to the co- location of wireless telecommunications equipment and
mitigating the visual effect of a telecommunication tower to an extent not
commercially Impracticable; promoting and encouraging, wherever
possible, the placement, height and quantity of wireless
telecommunications towers and equipment in such a manner, including but
not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques, to
minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property,
buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the
same area as the requested location of such telecommunications towers,
which shall mean using the least visually and physically intrusive facility
that is not technologically or commercially impracticable under the facts
and circumstances.
8.8.17a.1 Definitions
Words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them as in Section 6.18.
8.8.17a.1a Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 6.18.4, 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application.
a) A Site Plan showing the entire site (including property boundary lines)
and size of all existing structures within 500 feet of the site, existing and
proposed structures on site, the fall zone s -18,6 of the tower,
existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet and
any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the presence of
alluvial soils.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 22
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the
color and nature of all exterior material.
C) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing
and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials. This plan shall minimize adverse visual effects of
telecommunications towers and antennas through careful design,
siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging
techniques. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, to
minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation
and clustering of telecommunications towers, co- location of
telecommunications equipment faeilities on existing or new towers
shall be encouraged.
d) Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers shall not be
located within '/z mile of any existing monopole, lattice or guyed
telecommunications tower. An exception may be allowed when the
applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that 1) appropriate space on the
existing telecommunication tower is not available, or 2) the applicant has
made good faith effort to negotiate an agreement with the owner of the
existing telecommunication tower and has been unsuccessful, which
must be documented in writing, or 3) the telecommunication equipment
on the existing telecommunication tower is not compatible with the
proposed telecommunication equipment of the applicant, or 4)
adequate coverage by the applicant cannot be met at the location of the
existing telecommunication tower, or 5) the existing telecommunication
tower cannot be reasonably modified to accommodate additional co-
location by the applicant. Exceptions shall only be allowed after a
thorough analysis of the search area provided by the applicant is
performed by the County's consultant or Staff indicating that coverage is
not possible on an existing tower at the four - carrier capacity or other user
capacity that can be achieved. There must be a 80% approval vote of
the deciding board for this specific finding to pass the exception criteria.
d e) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for locating
the proposed equipment fasil+ties on an existing tower. Such evidence
shall consist of:
1) A listing of all telecommunications towers within a Y41 -mile
(for towers 150 feet in height or shorter 4#an 2 G4eet) or � 2-
miles (for towers greater than 2A9150 feet eF talleF in height)
radius of the proposed tower site. Documents shall be
submitted at the time of application filing that indicate the
applicant's ability or inability to co- locate on the identified
tower(s) and reasons why.
2) Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search range
within which the telecommunication tewef equipment can
function as intended. The following information shall be provided
for all existing towers within the search range:
(a) Telecommunication tower height, as measured from
the
base of the tower to the highest point of the
proposed antenna(s), including lightning rods, to be
located atop the tower structure;
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 23
(b) Existing and planned tower users;
(c) Whether the existing telecommunication tower could
accommodate the telecommunication equipment
antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without
causing structural instability or radio frequency
interference; and
(d) If the proposed telecommunication equipment
antenna cannot be accommodated on the existing
telecommunication tower, assess whether the existing
tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the
antennas transmitters and related equipment could be
protected from electromagnetic interference, and
generally describe the means and projected cost of
shared use of the existing tower; and
(e) any restrictions or limitations of the 7"�t
Gemmiss FCC or FAA that would
preclude the shared use of the tower; and
(f) any additional information requested by the County.
3) A summary explanation of why proposed telecommunication
equipment fasiiities cannot be located on any of the existing
towers in the search range.
e f) Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower, such
as lighting and coloring.
€ g) Draft letter- efsredit bond which will guarantee the removal of the tower
in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months.
g-h) A listing of, and current tax map identifying, all property owners within
1000 feet of the parcel shall be provided. Addressed, first class
stamped envelopes to said property owners shall be submitted with
the application. Each property owner shall be notified of the public
hearing in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class B Special Use Permit)
or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of this Ordinance.
h-1) The applicant shall, after submission of an application for a Special
Use Permit, arrange to fly, or raise upon a mast, a minimum of a
three -foot (3') in diameter, brightly colored red or orange balloon at
the maximum height of the proposed new tower. A notice of the
dates (including a second date in case of poor visibility, weather or
atmospheric conditions on the initial date), times, and location of
the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning property within
1,000 feet of the subject parcel no less than fourteen (14) days in
advance of the first test date. The applicant shall inform the County
Planning Staff, in writing, of the dates and times of the test at least
fourteen (14) days in advance. The balloon test shall be flown for at
least four (4) consecutive hours sometime between 7:00 A.M. and
4:00 P.M. on the dates chosen. The primary date shall be on a
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 24
weekend, but to prevent delays in the processing of the application,
and in case of poor weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial
date, the secondary date may be a weekday. The applicant, as
evidence that this requirement has been met shall submit a
notarized statement and listing of the property owners notified of
the test, a copy of a current Orange County Tax Map showing the
subject property and all properties within the notification ring and
copies of the certified mail returned receipts from the mailout The
applicant shall also post a sign on the subject property and
directional signs posted at locations to be determined by Planning
Staff. The signs shall measure no more than nine (9) square feet in
area, giving the proposed dates times and location of the balloon
test. The signs shall be posted to meet the same time limits as
provided for in the balloon test notification and as stated above A
notarized statement that this requirement has been met is also
required from the applicant and shall be submitted no later than ten
(10) days prior to the public hearing Photographs of a clearly -
visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum
height of the tower, as well as photographs with the proposed tower
and associated antennas superimposed upon them showing what
the proposed tower will look like shall be submitted no later than
ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Photographs shall be taken
from locations such as: property lines, and /or nearby residential areas,
historic sites, roadways, including scenic roads and major view corridors,
and other locations as deemed necessary by the Planning Staff to
assess the visual impact of the proposed tower. The visibility of the
balloon to adjacent properties and the surrounding area shall not
constitute sole justification of denial of a permit application, but is an
indication of what location on the site may be less visually intrusive.
The Special Use Permit application shall include a statement that the
facility and its equipment will comply with all federal, state and local
emission requirements.
k) All buildings and other structures to be located on the same
property as a telecommunication tower shall conform with the
setbacks established for the zoning district or as established
through the subdivision process.
1) An Applicant may be required to submit an Environmental
Assessment Analysis and a Visual addendum. Based on the results
of the Analysis, including the Visual addendum, the County may
require submission of a more detailed visual analysis. The scope of
the required Environmental and Visual Assessment will be reviewed
at the pre - application meeting.
The Applicant shall furnish a Visual Impact Assessment, which
shall include:
A " Zone of Visibility Map" which shall be provided in order to
determine locations from which the tower may be seen.
Pictorial _ representations of "before and after" views from key
viewpoints both inside and outside of the County as may be
appropriate, including but not limited to State highways and other
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE . 25
major roads; State and local parks; other public lands; historic
districts; preserves and historic sites normally open to the public;
and from any other location where the site is visible to a large
number of visitors, travelers or residents. Guidance will be
provided, concerning the appropriate key viewpoints at a pre -
application meeting.
An assessment of the visual impact of the tower base, guy wires
and accessory buildings from abutting and adjacent properties and
streets as relates to the need or appropriateness of screening.
All Applications shall contain a demonstration that the tower be
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.
Both the telecommunications tower and any and all accessory or
associated telecommunication equipment and related facilities shall
maximize the use of building materials, colors and textures
designed to blend with the structure to which it may be affixed
and /or to harmonize with the natural surroundings, this shall
include the utilization of stealth technology as may required by the
County.
At a telecommunications tower site, an access road, turn around
space and 'parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency
and service access. Maximum use of existing roads, whether public
or private, shall be made to the extent practicable. Road
construction shall at all times minimize ground disturbance and the
cutting of vegetation. Road grades shall closely follow natural
contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil
erosion.
8.8.17a.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards, as well as those found in Section 6.18.4 of
the Zoning Ordinance, shall be used in deciding upon an application for
approval:
a) Within or aAdjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks
from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be equal to"
height 110% of the tower height. If the tower is proposed
as an accessory use to a residential use, the tower setback Wge"
shall be 110% of the tower height from any residence or dwelling
unit on the subject property. The setbeek may be Fedused te no less
then one half of the ♦.,WeF height if easements feF the Femaining tba k
b) Adjacent to non - residential uses or non - residential zoning districts,
minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the property boundary
shall be the greater of 20% of the tower height, or the minimum required
setback.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 26
C) A Type C Landscape Buffer shall be provided between the tower and
accessory structures and adjoining property. Existing vegetation may be
removed only to the extent necessary to accommodate the tower,
equipment buildings, and support structures such as guy wires.
Plantings around the compound perimeter shall be composed
entirely of fast growing evergreen vegetation. New plantings and
existing vegetation used for screening shall be at least six (6) feet in
height or greater at planting. Proposed plantings (name, type,
height) shall be shown on the Landscape Plan for the facility.
d) The site plan shall indicate a location for at least one two equipment
buildings in addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. Lighting
for equipment buildings shall be situated so that
the sources of light and subsequent light spill
are wholly contained on the site. Photometrics of the lighting for the
proposed facility shall be submitted as part of the site plan. Shields
shall be placed on all lighting fixtures to Prevent light diffusion
extending upwards from the light source.
e)
PeFimeteF of the nite An 8 -foot fence or wall shall be required around
the base of any tower. This fence or wall shall encompass all
accessory equipment within the compound. Fences shall be
required around guy wire tie downs as well. The fence or wall may
be placed around the perimeter of the facility to include guy wire tie
downs and associated equipment pFepe should the
applicant/owner wish to do so.
f) The telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower
cannot be accommodated on an existing tower due to one or more of the
following reasons:
The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of
existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned
use of those towers and the towers cannot be reinforced to
accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable
cost.
2. The planned equipment would cause radio frequency
interference with other existing or planned equipment for these
towers, and the interference cannot be prevented at a
reasonable cost.
3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which the
equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and
reasonably in parity with similar existing or approved equipment.
4. No tower or other suitable facility exists in an area where the
equipment to be placed on the tower will function in its intended
manner.
g) The communications tower is structurally designed to support at least
erge two additional users as provided for in Section 6.18.4 d) 5a, and
the Special Use Permit includes a statement that the owner of the tower
is willing to permit other user(s) to attach communication equipment
faeil+ties which do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower,
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 27
provided that such other users agree to negotiate a reasonable
compensation to the owner from such liability as may result from such
attachment.
h) The color of the tower is of light tone, except to the extent required by
law, so as to minimize its visual impact.
The towers will not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC
or other federal or state agency. Where such agencies allow a choice
between painting the tower or installing strobe lighting, painting shall be
the preferred choice.
j) The tower and antenna will not result in a significant adverse impact on
the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor.
k) All abandoned communication towers shall be removed within 12 months
of the cessation of use. A bond or other security guaranteeing the
removal of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a
period of 12 months shall be posted. A cost estimate shall be provided
by a qualified contractor. The amount of the security shall be 110
percent of the estimate.
I) A determination shall be made that the facility and its equipment will
comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements, and the
Special Use Permit shall include. a statement that the facility and its
equipment will comply with all federal, state and local emission
requirements.
M) The Special Use Permit shall include a condition that the electro-
magnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with requirements of the
FCC, regarding emission of
electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on
the tower, and within 30 days of the installation of any additional
equipment in the future, the tower owner shall provide documentation of
emission levels in relation to FCC standards. In addition, the tower
owner must provide documentation of emission levels within five working
days if so requested by Orange County. Orange County may make such
requests at any time, not to exceed few two times per year.
n) High voltage and "No Trespassing" and other warning signs.
1) If high voltage is necessary for the operation of the
telecommunications tower or any accessory structures,
"HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" warning signs shall be
permanently attached to the fence or wall and shall be
spaced no more than forty (40) feet apart.
2) "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently
attached to the fence or wall and shall be spaced no more
than forty (40) feet apart.
3) The letters for the "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" and "NO
TRESPASSING' warning signs shall be at least six (6)
inches in height. The two (2) warning signs may be
combined into one (1) sign. The warning signs shall be
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 28
installed at least five (5) feet above the finished grade of the
fence.
4) The warning signs may be attached to freestanding poles if
the content of the signs may be obstructed by landscaping.
5) Signs noting federal registration (if required) shall be
attached to the tower structure in compliance with federal
regulation.
o) Equipment storage. Mobile or immobile equipment not used in
direct support of a tower facility shall not be stored or parked on
the site of the telecommunication tower, unless repairs to the tower
are being made.
pj Signs and advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs
or advertising purposes including company name, banners,
streamers, etc. shall be strictly prohibited.
Section 9. That this ordinance be filed in the book of published ordinances.
Section 10. That this ordinance is effective upon adoption.
ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE 29
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that this ordinance entitled 'An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of
Orange County' be adopted.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the day of
2002.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to 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
2002 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 , 2002.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
SEAL
Ill az
a 99
w Wg
N
Q
W
CL
cl
.V
<m
A
w
w $ III w
3 E E > c
to
^�rc�
L�
296
now
B
B
0���C
nounnommommummoma
nuounommommummono
ounnummoommummoon
usunummommommmoon
nounummoommosomon
ounnummommmummome
nounummoommummoon
unnumommommumommu
nounummoommummoon
unuummommommommou
unnuummommmummomn
unnuummmmmonommon
onannommommummmon
unnuumommmmummomo
ounnummommmummomo
unnuumommmmumommu
unnuummommmummoue
ounnummommanomman
unnuummommmummouo
A
w
w $ III w
3 E E > c
to
^�rc�
L�
296
29b
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
REGULATIONS — PLANNING BOARD & ADMINISTRATION
Bold = New Language
Bold Underlined = Language Changed or Added During Public Hearing Period
St+kethFOU O = Existing Language Deleted
= New Language Removed During Public Hearing Period
Italics = New Language added /changed based on Planning Board Recommendation
Bold = Additional language added by Staff During Public Hearing Period
Bold Undef"ned = Language Changed /Added During Public Hearing Period Deleted
1. Section 6.18 (Telecommunications Towers and Equipment Faeilities)
Change from (Staff):
Unforseen Events — Condemnations of existing telecommunications towers
for road projects, casualty of existing telecommunications towers blocking
of signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of a
telecommunications tower, or the need to replace an existing
telecommunications tower for capacity issues
Change to (Planning Board):
Unforseen Events — Condemnations of existing telecommunications towers
for road projects, casualty of existing telecommunications towers blocking
of signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of a
telecommunications tower, or the need to replace an existing
telecommunications tower for capacity issues or for other reasons deemed
necessary by the County Planning Director or his/her designee.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
2. Section 6.18.2 (Telecommunications Towers and Equipment Faejlities as Principal and
Accessory Uses), Subsection b) (Existing Towers), Paragraph 2)
Change from (Staff):
Notwithstanding the above provisions of this Section, towers in existence
as of (date of Ordinance adoption), may be replaced
with a tower of equal or less visual impact after approval by the County
Planning Director or his /her designee. However, if the proposed new tower
would not be consistent with the minimum standards under this Section,
replacement must be approved as provided for in this Ordinance.
30
Changed to (Planning Board):
Notwithstanding the above provisions of th4s Section 6.18,
telecommunications towers in existence as of (date of
Ordinance adoption), may be replaced with a tower of equal or less visual
impact after approval by the County Planning Director or his /her designee.
However, if the proposed new tower would not be consistent with the
minimum standards under thmis Section 6.18, replacement must be
approved as provided for in this Ordinance.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
3. Section 6.18.3 (Antennas Not Located on Telecommunications Towers), Subsection
e) Paragraph 7
Change from (Staff):
Antenna and /or microwave dishes may be located on poles owned or
controlled by the County
pursuant to the following
regulations:
a) The maximum height of the pole with antenna or
dish shall not exceed seventy (70) feet in height; and
b) The utility poles shall be located on public property, within
public easements, or public rights -of -way.
C) The antenna and/or dish shall be of a size and placement that
is structurally compatible with the engineering design of the
pole pursuant to the North Carolina State Building Code and
attested to by a professional engineer certified in
telecommunications facility design, and competent to evaluate
antenna choices.
d) The antenna or dishes shall not extend more than ten (10) feet
above the existing pole height. If the pole is replaced to
withstand the addition of telecommunications equipment, then
the same restriction shall apply except that the utility pole may
be twenty (20) feet higher than the adjacent pole heights.
e) Placement of an antenna and /or a dish on a utility pole shall
only be on poles owned or operated by a public utility
authorized to operate in the County, a County franchisee, or
Orange County.
31
Changed to (Planning Board and Staff):
Antennas andiff Miffewave des may be located on poles owned or
controlled by the County or by a utility provider
utility poles (11f applileable) OF poles owned Wy Him pursuant to the
following regulations:
a) The maximum height of the pole with antenna eF
d" shall not exceed seventy (70) feet in height; and
b) The utility poles shall be located on public property, within
public easements, or public rights -of -way.
c) The antenna and/er dish shall be of a size and placement that
is structurally compatible with the engineering design of the
pole pursuant to the North Carolina State Building Code and
attested to by a professional engineer licensed in the state of North
Carolina eeFtafiled on teleeemmunileatlens faellity design, and
competent to'evaluate antenna choices.
d) The antenna OF dashes shall not extend more than ten (10) feet
above the existing pole height. If the pole is replaced to
withstand the addition of telecommunications equipment, then
the same restriction shall apply except that the utility pole may
be twenty (20) feet higher than the adjacent pole heights.
e) Placement of an antenna and!eFa- disl>f on a utility pole shall
only be on poles owned or operated by a public utility
authorized to operate in the County, a County franchisee, or
Orange County.
f) All relocation costs associated with any relocation of the
antenna necessitated by roadway or sidewalk improvements
shall be borne by the telecommunications provider.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board and Staff
32
4. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Paragraph b)
Change from (Staff):
All telecommunications towers shall be placed in heavily wooded areas on
the site to the maximum extent possible so as to lessen the visual
intrusiveness of the structure and accessory structures. A statement shall
be submitted stating how the proposed tower will not be visually intrusive
to surrounding properties in the area. Criteria that may be used for such
evidence may be height and type of existing trees surrounding the
proposed tower, and local tomography.
Changed to (Planning Board):
All telecommunications towers shall be placed in heavily wooded areas on
the site to the maximum extent possible so as to lessen the visual
intrusiveness of the structure and accessory structures. A statement shall
be submitted stating how the proposed tower will fmt be minimally visually
intrusive to surrounding properties in the area. Criteria that may be used
for such evidence may be height and type of existing trees surrounding the
proposed tower, and local topography_
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
5. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection e)
(Standards of Evaluation), Paragraph 1)
Change from (Staff):
Tower height shall be measured from the base of the tower to the highest
point of the proposed antenna(s) to be located atop the tower structure.
Changed to (Planning Board):
Tower height shall be measured from the base of the tower to the highest
point of the proposed antenna(s), with lightening rod, to be located atop the
tower structure.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
33
6. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection f)
(Tower Inspection), Paragraph 2) (a)
Change from (Staff):
At least once every thirty -six (36) months, or thirty -six (36) months from the
date of a co- location approval, a structural engineer who is regularly
involved in the maintenance, inspection and /or erection of
telecommunications towers shall inspect the tower and submit a report
submitted to the Inspections Division within a reasonable time thereafter.
At a minimum, this inspection shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance and in accordance with the tower inspections
check list provided in the EIA -222 (as amended from time to time). This is
considered a major inspection review.
Changed to (Planning Board):
The following inspection schedule shall be followed except in cases where a
tower has no structures other than those associated with telecommunications
tower use located within the tower's fall zone. At least once every thirty-six
(36) months, or thirty -six (36) months from the date of a co- location
approval, a structural engineer who is regularly involved in the
maintenance, inspection and /or erection of telecommunications towers
shall inspect the tower and submit a report sitteei+to the Inspections
Division within a reasonable time thereafter. At a minimum, this inspection
shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance
and in accordance with the tower inspections check list provided in the
EIA -222 (as amended from time to time). This is considered a major
inspection review.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
34
7. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection f)
(Tower Inspection), Paragraph 2) (b)
Change from (Staff):
At least once every twelve (12) months, a visual inspection from the ground
shall be conducted by a properly trained staff member or tower consultant
and a report shall be filed with the Inspections Division within a reasonable
time thereafter. This inspection shall include, but shall not be limited to,
visual inspection of tower foundations, structures, guys, and connections
for evidence of settlement or later movement; soil erosion; condition of
paint or galvanizing; rust or corrosion, loose or missing bolts, loose or
corroded lightning protection connectors; tower plumbness, significant
variation in guy sags (i.e. tensions), and other material areas or matters
relating to the structural integrity of the tower. This is considered a minor
inspection review.
Changed to (Planning Board):
At least once every twelve (12) months, a visual inspection from the ground
shall be conducted by a properly trained staff member of a tower provider or
tower consultant and a report shall be filed with the Inspections Division
within a reasonable time thereafter. This inspection shall include, but shall
not be limited to, visual inspection of tower foundations, structures, guys,
and connections for evidence of settlement or later movement; soil
erosion; condition of paint or galvanizing; rust or corrosion, loose or
missing bolts, loose or corroded lightning protection connectors; tower
plumbness, significant variation in guy sags (i.e. tensions), and other
material areas or matters relating to the structural integrity of the tower.
This is considered a minor inspection review.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
35
8. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection f)
(Tower Inspection), Paragraph 5) (e)
Change from (Staff):
Analysis of Existing Towers. Within twelve (12) months of the effective
date of this Ordinance an analysis shall be performed on all towers in
excess of 100 feet in height. This analysis shall determine the tower's
compliance or lack thereof with the EIA standard in effect at the time the
tower was constructed or when the most recent structural loading change
was made. The tower owner shall, within thirty (30) days of completion of
the analysis or the passage of this Ordinance, provide the Inspections
Division' with a letter from a registered professional engineer licensed in
the State of North Carolina
stating the current structural status of the tower. If the tower does not meet
the aforementioned EIA standards, the letter shall indicate what would be
required to bring the tower up to standard. Existing towers shall be subject
to the annual electrical inspection conducted by the Inspections Division
including associated inspection fees.
Changed to (Planning Board):
Analysis of Existing Towers. Within twelve (12) months of the effective
date of this Ordinance an analysis shall be performed on all towers in
excess of 100 feet in height. This analysis shall determine the tower's
compliance or lack thereof with the EIA standard in effect at the time the
tower was constructed or when the most recent structural loading change
was made. The tower owner shall, within thirty (30) days of completion of
the analysis or the passage of this Ordinance, provide the Inspections
Division with a letter from a registered professional engineer licensed in
the State of North Carolina
stating the GUFFent ofiginallinifial structural status of the tower if the tower is
less than six (6) years old. If the tower does not meet the aforementioned
EIA standards, the letter shall indicate what would be required to bring the
tower up to standard. Existing towers shall be subject to the annual
electrical inspection conducted by the Inspections Division including
associated inspection fees.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board with Staff change
regarding age of tower.
36
9. Section 6.18.5 (Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ")
Change from (Staf):
As an alternative to the foregoing provisions, an applicant for a wireless
telecommunications facility less than two hundred (200) feet in height may
elect to participate in the Orange County Master Telecommunications Plan
( "Plan "). The County shall develop a plan which specifies 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. The Plan shall be presented at a
quarterly public hearing. After the quarterly public hearing, the Plan will be
presented to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. If adopted, the applicant may apply for necessary
Building Permits on properties approved in the Plan. Properties approved
in the Plan shall not be subject to an additional, separate public hearing
process on any proposed facility included in the Plan. Applicants will be
required to meet all Ordinance requirements and shall pay a site plan
approval and building application fee as provided for in the Orange County
Schedule of Fees.
Changed to (Planning Board):
As an alternative to the foregoing provisions, an applicant for a new
WiFeless telecommunications tower €asll+ty less than two hundred (200) feet
in height may elect to participate in the Orange County Master
Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan "). The County shall may develop a plan
which specifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a
wireless telecommunications tower faelllty by seeking issuance of a
Building Permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan.
The Plan shall be presented at a quarterly public hearing. After the
quarterly public hearing, the Plan will be presented to the Planning Board
for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. If adopted,
the applicant may apply for necessary Building Permits on properties
approved in the Plan. Properties approved in the Plan shall not be subject
to an additional, separate public hearing process on any proposed
telecommunications tower faeility included in the Plan. Applicants will be
required to meet all Ordinance requirements and shall pay a site plan
approval and building application fee as provided for in the Orange County
Schedule of Fees.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
37
10. Section 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers), Subsection 8.8.17a.1 a (Additional
Information), Paragraph d)
Change from (Staff):
Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers shall not be located
within' /2 mile of any existing monopole, lattice or guyed
telecommunications tower. This distance. restriction shall not apply to any
monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications tower owned by a public,
not for profit agency or entity, nor to facilities co- located on existing
buildings /structures.
Changed to (Planning Board):
Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers shall not be located
within % mile of any existing monopole, lattice or guyed
telecommunications tower. This distance restriction shall not apply to any
monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications tower owned by a public,
not for profit agency or entity. nor to telecommunications equipment
faeffitles co- located on existing buildings /structures. An exception may be
allowed when the applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that 9) appropriate
space on the existing telecommunications tower is not available; or 2) the
applicant has made good faith effort to negotiate an agreement with the owner of
the existing telecommunications tower and has been unsuccessful, which must
be documented in writing, or 3) the telecommunications equipment on the
existing telecommunications tower is not compatible with the proposed
telecommunications equipment of the applicant; or 4) adequate coverage by
the applicant cannot be met at the location of the existing telecommunications
tower, or 5) the existing telecommunications tower cannot be reasonably
modified to accommodate additional co- location by the applicant. Exceptions
shall only be allowed after a thorough analysis of the search area provided by the
applicant is performed by the County's consultant or Staff indicating that
coverage is not possible on an existing tower at the four - carrier capacity or other
user capacity that can be achieved. There must be a 80% approval vote of the
deciding board for this specific finding to pass the exception criteria.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
38
11. Section 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers), Subsection 8.8.17a.1 a (Additional
Information), Paragraph i)
Change from (Staff):
The applicant shall, after submission of an application for a Special Use
Permit, arrange to fly, or raise upon a mast, a minimum of a three -foot (31)
in diameter,. brightly colored red or orange balloon at the maximum height
of the proposed new tower. A notice of the dates (including a second date
in case of poor visibility, weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial
date), times, and location of the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning
property within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel no less than fourteen (14)
days in advance of the first test date. The applicant shall inform the .
County Planning Staff, in writing, of the dates and times of the test at least
fourteen (14) days in advance. The balloon test shall be flown for at least
four (4) consecutive hours sometime between 7:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. on
the dates chosen. The primary date shall be on a weekend, but to prevent
delays in the processing of the application, and in case of poor weather or
atmospheric conditions on the initial date, the secondary date may be a
weekday. The applicant, as evidence that this requirement has been met
shall submit a notarized statement and listing of the property owners
notified of the test, a copy of a current Orange County Tax Map showing
the subject property and all properties within the notification ring and
copies of the certified mail returned receipts from the mailout The
applicant shall also post a sign on the subject property and directional
signs posted at locations to be determined by Planning Staff. The signs
shall measure no more than nine (9) square feet in area giving the
proposed dates, times, and location of the balloon test The signs shall be
posted to meet the same time limits as provided for in the balloon test
notification and as stated above. A notarized statement that this
requirement has been met is also required from the applicant and shall be
submitted no later than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing_
Photographs of a clearly- visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to
the maximum height of the tower, as well as photographs with the proposed
tower superimposed upon them showing what the proposed tower will look
like, shall be submitted no later than ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing. Photographs shall be taken from locations such as: property lines,
and /or nearby residential areas, historic sites, roadways, including scenic roads
and major view corridors, and other locations as deemed necessary by the
Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the proposed tower.
39
Changed to (Planning Board):
The applicant shall, after submission of an application for a Special Use
Permit, arrange to fly, or raise upon a mast, a minimum of a three -foot (3')
in diameter, brightly colored red or orange balloon at the maximum height
of the proposed new tower. A notice of the dates (including a second date
in case of poor visibility, weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial
date), times, and location of the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning
property within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel no less than fourteen (14)
days in advance of the first test date. The applicant shall inform the
County Planning Staff, in writing, of the dates and times of the test at least
fourteen (14) days in advance. The balloon test shall be flown for at least
four (4) consecutive hours sometime between 7:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. on
the dates chosen. The primary date shall be on a weekend, but to prevent
delays in the processing of the application, and in case of poor weather or
atmospheric conditions on the initial date, the secondary date may be a
weekday. The applicant as evidence that this requirement has been met,
shall submit a notarized statement and listing of the property owners
notified of the test a copy of a current Orange County Tax Map showing
the subject Property and all properties within the notification ring, and
copies of the certified mail returned receipts from the mailout. The
applicant-shall also post a sign on the subject property, and directional
signs posted at locations to be determined by Planning Staff. The signs
shall measure no more than nine (9) square feet in area, giving the
proposed dates times and location of the balloon test. The signs shall be
posted to meet the same time limits as provided for in the balloon test
notification and as stated above. A notarized statement that this
requirement has been met is also required from the applicant and shall be
submitted no later than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
Photographs of a clearly - visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to
the maximum height of the tower, as well as photographs with the proposed
tower and associated antennas superimposed upon them showing what
the proposed tower will look like, shall be submitted no later than ten (10)
days prior to the public hearing. Photographs shall be taken from locations
such as: property lines, and /or nearby residential areas, historic sites, roadways,
including scenic roads and major view corridors, and other locations as deemed
necessary by the Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the proposed
tower. The visibility of the balloon to adjacent properties and the surrounding
area shall not constitute sole justification of denial of a permit application, but is
an indication of what location on the site may be less visually intrusive.
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
40
12. Section 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers), Subsection 8.8.17a.2 (Standards of
Evaluation), Paragraph d)
Change from (Staff):
The site plan shall indicate a location for at least one two equipment buildings in
addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. Lighting for such equipment
buildings shall be planned so that no security or other lighting filters over
onto adjacent properties from the site Photometrics of the lighting for the
proposed facility shall be submitted as part of the site plan Shields shall
be placed on all lighting fixtures to prevent light diffusion extending
upwards from the light source
Changed to (Planning Board):
The site plan shall indicate a location for at least eRe two equipment buildings in
addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. Lighting for such equipment
buildings shall be planned so that Me— GveF
the sources of light and subsequent
light spill are wholly contained on the site. Photometrics of the lighting for
the proposed facility shall be submitted as part of the site plan Shields
shall be placed on all lighting fixtures to prevent light diffusion extending
upwards from the light source
Administration Recommendation: Same as Planning Board
13. Section 6.18 (Telecommunications Facilities)
Add definition of "Fall Zone"
Fall Zone — The circular area measured from the base of the tower outward
in a circular pattern (radius) for a distance of 110% of the proposed or
existing tower's height including lightning rod. Telecommunications
towers shall not be located on property where the proposed tower's fall
zone will encroach on a residential, buildable, lot.
Administration Recommendation: Approval of Staff language.
14. Zoning Review Fees: Communication Towers
Proposed Fees (Staff):
Telecommunications Tower, Special Use Permit. Class A
(includes consultant fee)
Telecommunications Tower, Special Use Permit, Class B
(includes consultant fee)
Changes Suggested (Staff):
Telecommunications Tower, Special Use Permit. Class A
(includes consultant fee)
Telecommunications Tower, Special Use Permit, Class B
(includes consultant fee)
41
$10,000.00
Fee: $2,500.00
Escrow: $7,500.00
Fee: $1,500.00
Escrow: $7,000.00
Administration Recommendation: Accept Proposed Staff Change
15. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection e)
(Standards of Evaluation)
Change to add (Staff):
3) All towers shall be engineered to allow for co- locations. No co-
locator shall be refused access for co- location by charging
exorbitant lease fees. Public safety co- locations shall take priority
over other co- locators.
4) A tower consultant shall provide Staff assistance on exorbitant rate
leases.
Administration Recommendation: Accept proposed Staff change
42
16. Section 6.18.4 (Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers), Subsection f),
Paragraph 6
Change to add (Staff):
c) Escrow Account. An escrow account of an amount determined by
the Board of County Commissioners shall be paid by check to
Orange County upon filing of a telecommunications tower
application. The account shall be drawn upon to pay associated
consultant review fees during the review process. Any unused funds
in the account after the approval of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO)
shall be returned to the designated party.
Administration Recommendation: Accept proposed Staff change
17. Section 6.18 (Telecommunications Facilities)
Change to add (Staff):
Commercial Impracticability or Commercially Impracticable — The inability,
to perform an act on terms that are reasonable in commerce; the cause or
occurrence of which could not have been reasonably anticipated or
foreseen and that jeopardizes the financial efficacy of the project. The
inability to achieve a satisfactory financial return on investment or profit,
standing alone, shall not deem a situation to be commercially impracticable
and shall not render a requirement of this ordinance commercially
impracticable.
Stealth or Stealth Technology — Technology or practice intended to .
minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property,
buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the
same area as the requested location of such wireless telecommunications
facilities, which shall mean using the least visually and physically intrusive
facility that is not technologically or commercially impracticable under the
facts and circumstances.
Administration Recommendation: Accept proposed Staff change
43
18.Section 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers)
Change to add (Staff):
Overall Policy and Desired Goals for Special Use Permits for
Telecommunications Towers. Promoting and encouraging, wherever
possible, alternatives to constructing new towers, including but not limited
to the co- location of wireless telecommunications equipment and
mitigating the visual effect of a telecommunications tower to an extent not
commercially Impracticable; promoting and encouraging, wherever
possible, the placement, height and quantity of wireless
telecommunications tower and equipment in such a manner, including but
not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques, to
minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property,
buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the
same area as the requested location of such telecommunications towers,
which shall mean using the least visually and physically intrusive facility
that is not technologically or commercially impracticable under the facts
and circumstances.
Administration Recommendation: Accept proposed Staff change
44
19.Section 8.8.17a.1a (Additional Information)
Change to add (Staff):
1) An Applicant may be required to submit an Environmental
Assessment Analysis and a Visual addendum. Based on the results
of the Analysis, including the Visual addendum, the County may
require submission of a more detailed visual analysis. The scope of
the required Environmental and Visual Assessment will be reviewed
at the pre - application meeting.
The Applicant shall furnish a Visual Impact Assessment, which shall
include:
A "Zone of Visibility. Map" which shall be provided in order to
determine locations from which the Tower may be seen.
Pictorial . representations of "before and after" views from key
viewpoints both inside and outside of the County as may be
appropriate, including but not limited to State highways and other
major roads; State and local parks; other public lands;. historic
districts; preserves and historic sites normally open to the public;
and from any other location where the site is visible to a large
number of visitors, travelers or residents. Guidance will be provided,
concerning the appropriate key viewpoints at a pre- application
meeting.
An assessment of the visual impact of the tower base, guy wires and
accessory buildings from abutting and adjacent properties and
streets as relates to the need or appropriateness of screening.
All Applications shall contain a demonstration that the tower be 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.
Both the telecommunications tower and any and all accessory or
associated telecommunications equipment and related facilities shall
maximize the use of building materials, colors and textures designed
to blend with the structure to which it may be affixed and/or to
harmonize with the natural surroundings, this shall include the
utilization of stealth or concealment technology as may required by
the County.
45
At a telecommunications tower site, an access road, turn around
space and parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency
and service access. Maximum use of existing roads, whether public
or private, shall be made to the extent practicable. Road construction
shall at all times minimize ground disturbance and the cutting of
vegetation. Road grades shall closely follow natural contours to
assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion.
Administration Recommendation: Accept proposed Staff change
S .
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 46
Bold = New Language
Bold Underlined = Language Changed or Added During Public Hearing Period
Str-iket #Feu !sting -Language Deleted
Beid -StF = New Language Removed During Public Hearing Period
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. (page 14 -3)-- Specifications for Plan Preparation Amend Section 14.2.3 by adding
the following subsection to read as follows:
t. The names of all property owners adjacent to, and across the street from,
the proposed project shall be shown on the site plan.
Section 2. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table- -Amend P17A to read Telecommunication
Towers 150 Feet in Height or Shorter
Sect_ (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table —Amend to add P17B Telecommunication
Towers shorter than 200 feet (4 carriers)
Section 4. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table —Amend P17B to read P17C Telecommunication
Towers Greater than 150 Feet in Height
Section 5. (page 4 -14) Permitted Use Table —Amend Pi 7'C to read PI 7D Stealth
Telecommunication Towers -
Stealth (75 feet In Height and Shorter)
Section 6. (page 8 -3) Amend Section 8.4.1 (Pre - Application Conference) to read as follows:
al- Prior to the application being received as prescribed in Article 8.4.2, the
applicant must request a pre - application meeting with the Orange County
Planning Department. A sketch plan illustrating the location, size and major
design elements of the development of the site must be submitted five (5)
working days prior to the pre - application meeting. The Planning Department
may request that representatives of other public agencies be present at the
pre - application meeting. These agencies shall include, but not be limited to,
the Orange County Planning Board, the Orange County Recreation
Department, the Orange County Health Department, the municipalities of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Durham, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
r _
i ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 47
P1 Annual Telecommunications Protection Meeting (ATPM) P"-
1) Prior to the acceptance of any applications for Telecommunication
Towers, a pFe- appiisa site plan indicating proposed search
areas shall be submitted to the Zoning Officer on or before Jaaafy
December 31st of each year. The purpose of the ATPM Is pFe-
to allow for a complete review of co.
location opportunities and address coverana Is4„AQ eaer su Qt*-
month of January. New applications for Class A Special Use
Permits for telecommunication towers will be reviewed twice per
year at the County Commissioners= May and November Public
Hearings. Class B Special Use Permits will be reviewed by the
Board of Adjustment In accordance with the meeting schedule
when submitted provided the proposed site was Identified on plans
shown at the_ATPM. a* their - ,•..k_.....eea_,.. o.# -.._
1 Formal applications for the May and November Public Hearings by
the County Commissioners, and meetings of
the Board of Adjustment, shall be submitted in accordance with the
published yearly calendar of meetings schedule.
getermmation on the waiver request and notify the applicant within
a reasonable time period.
As of the effective date of this Ordinance amendment, any pending
applications that have not received a zoning compliance permit or a
special use permit shall meet all requirements of this Ordinance,
Including, but not limited to submission deadlines, application
standards and processing.
Section 7. • (Page 6 -25d) Amend Section 6.18 to read as follows:
6.18 Telecommunications Facilities
The following words, terns and phrases, when used in this Section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Accessoy Use - A use incidental to, subordinate to, and subservient to the
main use of the property. As defined In this section an accessory use is a
secondary use.
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 48
Antenna — A transmitting and /or receiving device used for wireless
services, that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves, including
directional antennas, such as panel and microwave dish antennas, and
omni - directional antennas, such as whips, excluding radar antennas,
amateur radio antennas and satellite earth stations.
Building Code — The most recently adopted or amended edition of the
North Carolina State Building Code.
Co- location — Locating wireless communication equipment for more than
one provider on one structure at one site.
Combined Antenna — An antenna or. an array of antennas designed and
utilized to provide services for more than one (1) carrier.
EIA -222 — Electronics Industries Association Standard 222 (Structural
Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Support Structures).
Existing Stricture/Building — For purposes of this Section, any building or
structure that Is currently existing on a parcel of land. Such structures
Include, but shall not be limited to, telecommunication towers, overhead
transmission line support structures, water tanks, silos, churches, schools,
and utility poles.
Extraordinary Conditions — Conditions subsequent to a hurricane, flood,
tornado, or other natural disaster.
FAA — The Federal Aviation Administration.
FCC —The Federal Communications Commission.
Guyed Tower — A telecommunication tower that Is supported, in whole or in
part, by guy wires and ground anchors.
Inspections Division — The Orange County Planning and Inspections -
Department.
Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ") — A plan developed for Orange
County by the County's Planning Department that sets forth properties that
have received general zoning approval from the County Commissioners for
the placement of telecommunication towers less than 200 feet in height
provided that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations are met.
Microcell Facility —A telecommunications facility consisting of an antenna
(as defined above) and related equipment which is located either on a
telecommunication tower or affixed to a- structure in some fashion for the
provision of wireless services.
Microwave — Microwave dish antenna: A dlsh4lke antenna used to link
wireless service sites together by wireless transmission of voice or data.
Monopole Tower — A telecommunication tower consisting of a single pole
or spire self supported by a permanent foundation, constructed without
guy wires and ground anchors.
t
S ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT)
49
Panel Antenna — An inconspicuous, relatively flat, square or rectangular
antenna designed to be affixed to the wall of a building or structure in order
to receive and transmit signals from a telecommunication device.
Qualified Shared Facility — A facility that is appropriately designed for
sharing antenna space, and grants space on the facility in a fair,
reasonable, and non - discriminatory manner.
Roofline — The overall ridge line of the structure, not including cupolas,
elevator towers, clock towers or other features.
Self-Support/Lattice Tower — A tapered structure broad at the base and
more narrow at the top consisting of cross - members and diagonal bracing
and without guyed support.
Stealth Facility — Any telecommunications facility which is designed to
blend Into the surrounding environment. Examples of stealth facilities
Include architecturally screened roof - mounted antennas, antennas
integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunication and/or
personal wireless services towers designed to look like light poles, power
poles or trees.
Telecommunications Facility — A combination of equipment which is
located either upon a telecommunications tower or a structure which
Includes some form of antenna for the purpose of transmitting and
receiving wireless services.
Telecommunications Tower — A guyed, monopole or self- support/lattice
tower, constructed as a free - standing structure containing one (1) or more
antennas, used in the provision of wireless services excluding radar
towers, amateur radio support structures licensed by the FCC, private
home use of satellite dishes and television receiving antennas and satellite
earth stations installed in accordance with applicable codes.
Telecommunication Tower, Stealth — A telecommunication tower whose
primary purpose is, or visually appears to be, something other than the
support of telecommunications equipment, the apparent purpose of the
tower is customarily considered as accessory to a use that is allowed in
the zoning district, and the structure and its primary use comply with the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Unforseeri Events — Condemnations of existing telecommunication towers
for road proiects. casualty of existing telecommunication towers, blocking-
of signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of a
telecommunication tower, or the need to replace an existing
telecommunication tower for capacity issues.
Whip Antenna — A cylindrical antenna that transmits and/or receives
signals in three hundred sixty (360) degrees.
.t
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 50
6.18.1 Administrative Aporoval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers and Co- location
Eauioment
New stealth telecommunication towers up to 75 feet in height, which are
sufficiently disguised so as to minimize visual impact, may be approved
administratively by the Planning Staff provided that all of the provisions contained
in Article 8.8.17a are met. A new tower may be considered a stealth
telecommunication tower if: the primary purpose of the structure Is, or visually
appears to be; something other than the support of telecommunications
equipment; the apparent purpose is customarily considered as accessory to a
use which is allowed in the zoning district; and the structure and its primary use
comply with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The placement of telecommunication equipment on existing structures may be
approved administratively provided that the equipment does not extend more
than 20 feet above the structure, OF 10% Gf the height of the S#UGtUF8, WhIGh8Y8
is gFeateF, and dimensional requirements height aAd setbaGk limitagaRs. of the
Zoning Ordinance are met.
6.18.2 Telecommunications facilities as accessory uses
a) Telecommunications facilities, including monopole and stealth
telecommunication towers above 75 feet and microcell facilities
shall be permitted as an accessory use In all districts in accordance
with the provisions of this Ordinance, or as follows:
1) On property owned by the County or any public entity
except those designated as historic properties or sites. The
County shall authorize the application and use of County
property after the applicant executes a lease 'agreement
acceptable to the County. The County shall have no
obligation whatsoever to execute such lease even if the
applicant can meet the criteria set forth herein.
b) Towers as part of existing utility poles shall be permitted as an
accessory use. Towers shall be constructed as part of the existing
utility poles or as replacements for the existing utility poles. No
freestanding towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless
services shall be permitted within utility easements.
c) The placement of a new telecommunication tower in any zoning
district must be approved as a Special Use, except as permitted In
the Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ").
d) Existing Towers
1) Telecommunications antennas may be placed on existing
towers.
't
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT)
51
2) Notwithstanding the above provisions of this Section,
towers in existence as of (date of
Ordinance adoption), may be replaced with a tower of equal
or less visual Impact after approval by the County Planning
Director or his/her designee. However, if the proposed new
tower would not be consistent with the minimum standards
under this Section, replacement must be approved as
provided for in this Ordinance.
6.18.3 Antennas not located on telecommunications towers.
a) Antenna types. Antennas shall be permitted on existing
buildings /structures in accordance with this Ordinance. To
minimize adverse visual impacts, stealth antenna types shall be
preferred. If a non - stealth antenna is proposed, the application
shall be required to demonstrate, In a technical manner acceptable
to the Planning Director or his/her designee, why the stealth
antenna (i.e. an antenna incorporated Into the architecture of the
building or fully screened from view from sight proximate to the
antenna) cannot be used for the particular application. This does
not preclude a combination of the various types of antennas.
1) Antenna dimensions. Antenna dimensions shall be
reviewed by the Planning Director or his/her designee as
required by existing technology. A statement shall be
submitted, prepared by a professional engineer sedified in
teleGammunin-ation facility design, aPA competent to
evaluate antenna choices, to certify the need for the
required dimensions. -
b) Aircraft hazard. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the
Inspections Department, the application shall provide evidence that
the telecommunication tower or antennas are in compliance with
FAA regulations. Where an antenna will not exceed the highest
point of the existing structure upon which it is to be mounted, such
evidence shall not be required.
c) Stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas not exceeding twenty
(20) feet above roofline of the building or support structure shall be
permitted as an accessory use in all zoning districts.
d) Building or rooftop stealth antennas shall be subject to the
following minimum standards:
1) No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna;
2) No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on an
antenna, unless required by the FCC or the FAA;
3) Any related unmanned equipment building shall not contain
more than six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area
per user or be more than twelve (12) feet in height;
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 52
4) If the equipment building is located on the roof of the
building, the area of the equipment building shall not
occupy more than twenty -five (25) percent of the roof area,
and shall comply with all State of North Carolina Building
Code requirements for the proposed and existing building;
and
5) Approval of the Planning Qirector or his/her designee to
ensure consistency with the definition of stealth facility Is
required. Each application shall contain a rendering or
photograph of the antenna including, but not limited to,
colors and screening devices.
e) Non - stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas shall only be
permitted not exceeding twenty (20) feet above the roofline of the
subject building or support structure and subject to the procedure
and requirements provided elsewhere In this chapter. Building
rooftop non - stealth antennas shall be subject to the following
minimum standards:
1) Antennas shall only be permitted on buildings or structures
which are at least fifty (50) feet tall. Antennas may be
placed on buildings less than fifty (50) feet tall if public
safety needs warrant the antenna;
2) Antennas, and related equipment buildings, shall be located
or screened to minimize the visual impact of the antenna
upon adjacent properties and shall be of a material or color
which matches the exterior of the building or structure upon
which it is situated;
3) No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna;
4) No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on an
antenna, unless required by the FCC or the FAA;
5) Any related unmanned equipment building shall not contain
more than six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area
per user or be more than twelve (12) feet in height;
6) If the equipment building is located on the roof of the
building, the area of the equipment building shall not
occupy more than twenty -five (25) percent of the roof area,
and shall comply with all State of North Carolina Building
Code requirements for the proposed and existing building;
and
t
i. ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 53
7) Antenna and /or microwave dishes may be located on
governmentally franchised utility poles (if applicable) or
poles owned by the County pursuant to the following
regulations:
a) The maximum height of the pole with antenna or
dish shall not exceed seventy (70) feet in height; and
b) The utility poles shall be located on public property,
within public easements, or public rights -of -way.
c) The antenna and /or dish shall be of a size and
placement that is structurally compatible with the
engineering design'of the pole pursuant to the North
Carolina State Building Code and attested to by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of North
Car_
design, and competent to evaluate antenna choices.
d) The antenna or dishes shall not extend more than
ten (10) feet above the existing pole height. if the
pole Is replaced to withstand the addition of
telecommunications equipment, then the same
restriction shall apply except that the utility pole
may be.twenty (20) feet higher than the adjacent pole
heights.
e) Placement of an antenna and/or a dish on a utility
pole shall only be on poles owned or operated by a
public utility authorized to operate in the County, a
County franchisee, or Orange County.
f) Fees.
1) A filing fee as set by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners shall be paid upon application for a
Building Permit, Site Plan approval, or Special Use Permit.
In addition, a inspection fee is due the County at the time of
future inspections.
2) An engineering permit fee shall be paid if a pole is replaced
to accommodate telecommunications equipment.
3) Public land or right-of-way lease agreements will be
established by separate instrument.
f.
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 54
6.18.4 Minimum Standards for Telecommunication Towers.
All telecommunication towers must meet the following minimum standards:
a) Prior to the Issuance of a Building /Electrical Permit by the
Inspections Division, a site development plan shall be
presented for approval to the Planning Division. Each
application for a proposed telecommunications tower shall
Include all requirements for site development plan approval
as required. Approval of the Planning Director or his/her
designee to verify consistency with the definition of stealth
facility Is required. Each application shall contain a
rendering or photograph of the tower including, but not
limited to, colors and screening devices.
the applicant stating how the proposed tower will not be
visually intrusive to surrounding properties in the area.
Criteria that may be used for such evidence may be height
and type of existing trees surrounding the proposed tower,
and local topography.
cZ A statement shall be submitted, prepared by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina se+tilled -in
design, which through rational
engineering analysis, certifies the tower's compliance with
applicable standards as set forth in the State of North
Carolina Building Code, and any associated regulations;
and describes the tower's capacity, including an example of
the number and type of antennas it can accommodate.
d2 Applicants shall provide:
1) the existing cell sites (latitude, longitude, power levels)
to which this proposed site will be a handoff candidate,
2) an Radio Frequency plot indicating the coverage of
existing sites, and that of the proposed site,
3) the search area utilized in finding the proposed site,
4) antenna heights and power levels of proposed site, and
5) a written affidavit stating why "the proposed site Is
necessary for their communications service" (e.g., for
coverage, capacity, hole - filling, etc.) and a statement
that there are no existing alternative sites within the
provided search area and there are no alternative
technologies available which could provide the
proposed service enhancement without the tower.
s
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 55
a) County staff will utilize the services of a registered
professional engineer to confirm the statement
made in item 5) above. No tower shall be permitted
to exceed Its designed loading capacity. For all
towers attached to existing structures, the statement
shall include certification that the structure can
support the load superimposed from the tower. All
towers shall have the capacity to permit multiple
users; at a minimum monopole towers shall
accommodate two (2) users and self- supportliattice
or guyed towers shall, at a minimum accommodate
three (3) users.
91 Standards of evaluation.
1) Tower height shall be measured from the base of the
.,tower to the highest point of the proposed
antenna(s) to be located atop the tower structure.
2) Telecommunication towers shall conform with all of
the requirements of Sections 8.8.17a.1 a (a-a) and
8.8.17a.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
ft Tower Inspection.
1) Telecommunication tower owners shall submit a
report to the County Inspections Division certifying
structural and electrical Integrity upon completion of
the initial construction and at Intervals as specified
In this Section
2) Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner
and made available upon request to the Inspections
Division during regular business hours.
a) At least once every thirty-six (36) months, or
thirty -six (36) months from the date of a co
location approval, a structural engineer who
Is regularly involved in the maintenance,
Inspection and/or erection of
telecommunication towers shall Inspect the
tower and submit a report submitted to the
Inspections Division within a reasonable
time thereafter. At a minimum, this
Inspection shall be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of this Ordinance and in
accordance with the tower inspections check
list provided in the EIA -222 (as amended
from time to time). This'is considered a
major inspection review.
_ ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 56
b) At least once every twelve (12) months, a
visual Inspection from the ground shall be
conducted by a properly trained staff
member or tower consultant and a report
shall be filed with the Inspections Division
within a reasonable time thereafter. This
Inspection shall include; but shall not be
limited to, visual Inspection of tower
foundations, structures, guys, and
connections for evidence of settlement or
later movement; soil erosion; condition of
paint or galvanizing; rust or corrosion, loose
or missing bolts, loose or corroded lightning
protection connectors; tower plumbness,
significant variation in guy sags (i.e.
tensions), and other material areas or
matters relating to the structural integrity of
the tower. This Is considered a minor
Inspection review.
c) in addition to the regularly scheduled major
and minor inspections set forth in
paragraphs 1 and 2 above, a minor
Inspection, at a minimum, will be conducted
if the tower or its appurtenances are noted at
any time to be visibly damaged.
Additionally, a major inspection shall be
conducted if the visible damage to the tower
Is significant or when, after conducting a
minor inspection, significant questions
remain about the structural integrity of the
tower.
3) The Inspections Division may conduct periodic
Inspections of telecommunication towers to ensure
electrical Integrity. The owner of the
telecommunication tower may be required by the
County to have more frequent inspections should
there be reason to believe that the electrical integrity
of the tower Is jeopardized. The County reserves the
right to require additional Inspections if there is
evidence that the tower has a safety problem or is
exposed to extraordinary conditions. .
4) Structurally Unsafe or Unused Towers. Any tower
found, through inspection by the owner or by
Inspection of the Inspections Division, to be
structurally unsafe and cannot be brought into
compliance within 180 days must be removed at the
owner's expense.
i
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 57
5) Compliance with Standards. Current or former EIA
standards shall apply to the addition of antennas or
other appurtenances to communications tower's
under the following conditions:
a) Additions to towers constructed prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance, regardless
of whether the additions are accounted for in
the original design, shalt comply with the
current EIA standards, and the wind loading
specified therein. Additions to towers
constructed subsequent to the effective date
of this Ordinance shall comply with
standards set forth elsewhere in this Section.
b) Existing towers, which will not have any
appurtenances added to them shall at a
minimum comply with the EIA standards In
existence at the time the tower was erected.
c) Replacement of antennas or other
appurtenances shall at a minimum comply
with the EIA standard in existence at the time
the tower was erected if the replacement
does not add to the original design loading.
d) if a structural analysis shows a tower Is not
In compliance with the appropriate EIA
standards, the owner shall submit an
application to the Inspections Division with a
plan to bring the tower into compliance
within six (6) months.
e) Analysis of Existing Towers. Within twelve
(12) months of the effective date of this
Ordinance an analysis shall be performed on
all towers in excess of 100 feet in height.
This analysis shall determine the tower's
compliance or lack thereof with the EIA
standard In effect at the time the tower was
constructed or when the most recent
structural loading change was made. The
tower owner shall, within thirty (30) days of
completion of the analysis or the passage of
this Ordinance, provide the Inspections
Division with a letter from a registered
professional engineer licensed in the State of
North Carolina seFURed in
stating the
current structural status of the tower. If the
tower does not meet the aforementioned EIA
standards, the letter shall indicate what .
would be required to bring the tower up to
standard. Existing towers shall be subject to
the annual electrical Inspection conducted
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 58
by the Inspections Division including
associated inspection fees.
1) The Inspections Division shall be
notified in writing when a required
analysis is complete. A copy of the
analysis report shall be made
available to the County Inspections
Division upon request. That report
shall also give details of the net
result of any changes made to the
tower or its appurtenances since the
last inspection.
6) Fees and charges.
a) A filing fee as set by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners shall be paid upon application for a
Building Permit, Site Plan approval or Special Use
Permit. In addition, an inspection fee is due the
County at the time of future inspections.
b) Public land or right- of-way lease agreements shall
be established by separate instrument and recorded
priortgthe issuance of Building Permits.
6.18.5 Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ")
As an alternative to the foregoing provisions, an applicant for a wireless
telecommunications facility less than two hundred (200) feet in height may
elect to participate in the Orange County Master Telecommunications Plan
( "Plan "). The County shall develop a plan which specifies 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. The Plan shall be presented at a
quarterly public hearing. After the quarterly public hearing, the Plan will be
presented to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. If adopted, the applicant- may apply for necessary
Building Permits on properties approved In the Plan. Properties approved
In the Plan shall not be subject to an additional, separate public hearing
process on any proposed facility Included in the Plan. Applicants will be
required to meet all Ordinance requirements and shall pay a site plan
approval and building application fee as provided for in the Orange County
Schedule of Fees.
a) Information to be provided. All telecommunication
providers who elect to construct on properties approved In
the Plan shall provide all necessary and requested
Information to the County's telecommunications consultant.
Such information shall Include that set forth in this
Ordinance, for each telecommunications site which it
currently operates within the County, as well as each site
which it reasonably believes it will require within the County
for the next. five (5) years.
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 59
b) Plan modification. Modifications to the Plan shall be
considered annually at the February Quarterly Public
Hearing. Any applicant requesting modification of the Plan
shall make application to the Zoning Officer on or before
December 15th 1aam-ay-Teh of each year. The fee for annual
modification of the Plan shall be that as set forth in the
Orange County Schedule of Fees.
c) The County shall use signal propagation methods and
professional engineers qualified in this discipline and
assure compliance with all federal, state, and local
regulations.
d) . All sites specified in the Plan shall be deemed permitted
sites for the construction of wireless communications
towers without the necessity of further public hearing. For
those sites specified on the Plan which are on property
owned or controlled by the County (regardless of zoning
classification), the applicant shall, prior to seeking a
Building Permit for such facility, negotiate and execute a
lease agreement with the County for such site upon terms
and conditions which are acceptable to the County.
e) Withdrawal from the Plan. Withdrawal from the Plan is
permitted by submitting a notarized statement requesting
withdrawal from the Plan
Section 8. (Pages 8 -21 to 8 -24) Amend Section 8.8.17a to read as follows:
8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers
8.8.17a.1 Definitions
Words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them as in Section 6.18.
8.8.17a.1 a Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 6.18.4, 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application.
a) A Site Plan showing the entire site (including property boundary lines)
and size of all existing structures within 500 feet of the site, existing and
proposed structures on site, the fall zone plus 10% of the tower,
existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet and
any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the presence of
alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the
color and nature of all exterior material.
i
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 60
c) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing
and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials. This plan shall minimize adverse visual effects of
telecommunication towers and antennas through careful design,
siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging
techniques. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, to
minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation
and clustering of telecommunications towers, co- location of
facilities on existing or new towers shall be encouraged.
d) Monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunication towers shall not be
located within % mile of any existing monopole, lattice or guyed
telecommunications tower. This distance restriction shall not apply
to any monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunication tower owned
by a public, not for profit agency or entity, nor to facilities co-
located on existing buiidinas /structures.
d e) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for locating
the proposed facilities on an existing tower. Such evidence shall consist
of:
1) A listing of all towers within a A 1 -mile (for towers 150 feet in
height or shortgr 4kian 280 -feet) or 4 2 -miles (for towers greater
than 290150 feet ef- tallef in height) radius of the proposed
tower site. Documents shall be submitted at the time of
application filing that Indicate the applicant's ability or
Inability to co- locate on the identified tower(s) and reasons
why.
2) Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search range
within which the tower equipment can function as intended. The
following information shall be provided for all existing towers -
within the search range:
(a) Tower height, as measured from the greund#ethe
base of the tower
to the highest point of the proposed antennas) to be
located atop the tower structure;
(b) Existing and planned tower users;
(c) Whether the existing tower could accommodate the
antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without
causing structural Instability-or radio frequency
Interference; and
(d) If the proposed antenna cannot be accommodated on
the existing tower, assess whether the existing tower
could be structurally strengthened or whether the
antennas transmitters and related equipment could be
protected from electromagnetic Interference, and
generally describe the means and projected cost of
shared use of the existing tower; and
f_ ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT)
(e) any restrictions or limitations of the Fedeml
FCC or FAA that would
preclude the shared use of the tower; and
(f) any additional information requested by the County.
3) A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be
located on any of the existing towers in the search range.
61
e f)
€ g)
$-h)
Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower, such
as lighting and coloring.
Draft lettSF Of GFedit bond which will guarantee the removal of the tower
in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months.
A listing of, and current tax map Identifying, all property owners within
1000 feet of the parcel shall be provided. Addressed, first class
stamped envelopes to said property owners shall be submitted with
the application. Each property owner shall be notified of the public
hearing In accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class B Special Use Permit)
or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of this Ordinance.
.;.
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 62
The applicant shall, after submission of an application for a Special
Use Permit, arrange to fly, or raise upon a mast, a minimum of a
three -foot (31) In diameter, brightly colored red or orange balloon at
the maximum height of the proposed new tower. A notice of the
dates (including a second date in case of poor visibility, weather or
atmospheric conditions on the Initial date), times, and location of
the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning property within
1,000 feet of the subject parcel no less than fourteen (14) days in
advance of the first test date. The applicant shall inform the County
Planning Staff, in writing, of the dates and times of the test at least
fourteen (14) days In advance. The balloon test shall be flown for at
least four (4) consecutive hours sometime between 7:00 A.M. and
4:00 P.M. on the dates chosen. The primary date shall be on a
weekend, but to prevent delays in the processing of the application,
and in case of poor weather or atmospheric conditions on the Initial
date, the secondary date may be a weekday. The applicant, as
iiuj gays prior to the public hearing Photographs of a clearly-
visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum
height of the tower, as well as photographs with the nrnnnaari fnui
look like. shall be submitted no later than ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing. Photographs shall be taken from locations such as:
property lines, and/or nearby residential areas, historic sites, roadways,
including scenic roads and major view corridors, and other locations as
deemed necessary by the Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of
the proposed tower.
The Special Use Permit application shall Include a statement that the
facility and its equipment will comply with all federal, state and local
emission requirements.
k) All buildings and other structures to be located on the same
property as a telecommunication tower shall conform with the
setbacks established for the zoning district or as established
through the subdivision process.
i
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 63
8.8.17a.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards, as well as those found In Section 6.18.4 of
the Zoning Ordinance, shall be used in deciding upon an application for
approval:
a) Within or aAdjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks
from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be equal to the
height of tewn 110% of the tower height. If the tower is oronosec
The setbaGk May 138 FedUGed to Re less thaR ene half of 1-he Wooer height
PFGPGFty QWAGFr-
b) Adjacent to non - residential uses or non - residential zoning districts,
minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the property boundary
shall be the greater of 20% of the tower height, or the minimum required
setback.
C) A Type C Landscape Buffer shall be provided between the tower and
accessory structures and adjoining property. Existing vegetation may be
removed only to the extent necessary to accommodate the tower,
equipment buildings, and support structures such as guy wires.
d)
The site plan shall indicate a location for at least eRe two equipment
buildings in addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. Lighting
for equipment buildings shall be situated so that no light is visible
e)
peFiFAeteF Of Me ske. M 8 -foot fence or wall shall be required around
the base of any tower. This fence or wall shall encompass all
accessory equipment within the compound. Fences shall be
required around guy wire tie downs as well. The fence or wall may
be placed around the perimeter of the property should the
applicantfowner wish to do so.
f) The telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower
cannot be accommodated on an existing tower due to one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of
existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned
use of those towers and the towers cannot be reinforced to
accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable
cost.
4 '
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 64
2. The planned equipment would cause radio frequency
interference with other existing or planned equipment for these
towers, and the interference cannot be prevented at a
reasonable cost.
3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which the
equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and
reasonably in parity with similar existing or approved equipment.
4. No tower or other suitable facility exists in an area where the
equipment to be placed on the tower will function in its Intended
manner.
g) The communications tower is structurally designed to support at least
eae two additional users, and the Special Use Permit includes a
statement that the owner of the tower Is willing to permit other user(s) to
attach communication facilities which do not interfere with the primary
purpose of the tower, provided that such other users agree to negotiate a
reasonable compensation to the owner from such liability as may result
from such attachment.
h) The color of the tower is of light tone, except to the extent required by
law, so as to minimize its visual impact.
i) The towers will not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC
or other federal or state agency. Where such agencies allow a choice
between painting the tower or installing strobe lighting, painting shall be
the preferred choice.
j) The tower and antenna will not result in a significant adverse Impact on
the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor.
k) All abandoned communication towers shall be removed within 12 months
of the cessation of use. A bond or,other security guaranteeing the
removal of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a
period of 12 months shall be posted. A cost estimate shall be provided
by a qualified contractor. The amount of the security shall be 110
percent of the estimate.
I) A determination shall be made that the facility and its equipment will
comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements, and the
Special Use Permit shall include a statement that the facility and its
equipment will comply with all federal, state and local emission
requirements.
m) The Special Use Permit shall include a condition that the electro-
magnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with requirements of the
FCC, regarding emission of
electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on
the tower, and within 30 days of the installation of any additional
equipment in the future, the tower owner shall. provide documentation of
emission levels in relation to FCC standards. in addition, the tower
owner must provide documentation of emission levels within five working
days if so requested by Orange County. Orange County may make such
requests at any time, not to exceed fejf two times per year.
.J"1W^�:GdtItlIIGAN: CSZRMIRACCIC�OW0.: MK�LWIFICSS8IlR1RlCi1ll11�11�1\ C9l: aumcsmemmmmanm. sr�rama: Rlfaxv, �mr�maaxne�mummaca�ttla�u�: 1T] �eCuR:• 1t^ s. �c�hn, �at6lCS�mnn\ a��* �n1P9510"F���'S'�3��ih�1:C�9h�` r�ii�'
i
ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT)
n) High voltage and "No Trespassing" and other warning signs.
1) If high voltage is necessary for the operation of the
telecommunications tower or any accessory structures,
"HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" warning signs shall be
permanently attached to the fence or wall and shall be
spaced no more than forty (40) feet apart.
2) "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently
attached to the fence or wall and shall be spaced no more
than forty (40) feet apart.
.:R
3) The letters for the "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" and "NO
TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be at least siz (6)
Inches in height. The two (2) warning signs may be
combined into one (1) sign. The warning signs shall be
Installed at least five (5) feet above the finished grade of the
fence.
4) The warning signs may be attached to freestanding poles if
the content of the signs may be obstructed by landscaping.
5) Signs noting federal registration (if required) shall be
attached to the tower structure in compliance with federal
regulation.
o) Equipment storage. Mobile or immobile equipment not used in
direct support of a tower facility shall not be stored or parked on
the site of the telecommunication tower, unless repairs to the. tower
are being made.
pl Signs and advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs
or advertising purposes including company name, banners,
streamers, etc. shall be strictly prohibited.
Section 9. That this ordinance be filed in the book of published ordinances.
Section 10. That this ordinance is effective upon adoption.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that this ordinance entitled 'An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of
Orange County' be adopted.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the day of , 2002.
I ._ - ...:;:•.... � .::.....:...:........ .. .... ...... .....: _ ..... .......: ..... awe` s�. ie�e�na¢ Uaw�4�s. e, �sa`5h9�1,v�vi�`ouR.��4,`3�'�tl+ '`lL�'.•lb'8'��"�L.`R:1£�:,.
�G�OL ^.tl3L:.19P�II�.1C7C.�^�@lN'ItlP1 � `^ �Ii�: iC: tlC1�R1C�D1�. tK': RCOgtOml9H: mWt��NORYN➢ 4LC. 11RPAW1�RC3�WL4LRlCZ +al6lri�tlalaafflNlltm.3`. @ti..W��
t'
- ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) ss
i, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to 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 , 2002 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 , 2002.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
SEAL
An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Schedule of Fees
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, that
the Orange County Schedule of Fees is hereby amended by adding the new fees as follows:
Section 1. Building Inspection Fees: Communication Towers
New Tower (per linear foot [If] of height) $20.00 / If
(measured from grade to upper most height, including antenna
Co -User (at initial tower construction):
Co- Location (at date subsequent to tower. construction):
Annual Electrical Inspection:
Minor Inspection Fee (if performed by Inspections Staff)
Minor Inspection Fee (If performed by Consultant)
Section 2. Zoning Review Fees: Communication Towers
Master Telecommunication Plan Amendment Requests:
Telecommunication Tower, Special Use Permit, Class A
Escrow Account
Telecommunication Tower, Special Use Permit, Class B
Escrow Account
Zoning Review Fee (building permit):
Section 3. That this ordinance is effective upon adoption.
67
$500.00 / user
$1,000.00
$100.00
$100.00
Cost + 10%
$200.00
$2,500.00
$7,500.00
$1,500.00
$7,000.00
$100.00
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that this ordinance entitled `An Ordinance Amending the Orange County
Schedule of Fees be adopted.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the _ day of
2002.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to 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 the _ day of , 2002 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 , 2002.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
SEAL
Duke Energy Corporation
Electric Transmission
526 South Church street/ EC100
P O. Box 1006 -
Charlotte, NC 29201 -1006
Phone (704) 382 -6066
fax (704) 382 -6261
August 26, 2002
Mr. Craig Benedict
Director
Orange County Planning and Inspection Department
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Craig,
Subject: Proposed Tower Ordinance
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to provide input on the proposed ordinance for the
Telecommunication Tower Ordinance Amendments. We support the effort of Orange County to
encourage joint use of aerial facilities. Duke Energy was the second utility in the nation to install
communications antenna on electric transmission towers and has continued to support the opportunity to
leverage existing towers.
Jeff Riggins, Duke Energy — Duke Communications Services has already provided more detailed
feedback to the propose ordinance. However, in the section 6.183.e.7 the term "governmentally
franchised utility poles" could be confusing to the electric utility industry. As I understand the intent
from our conversation, the purpose was for poles owned or intended to be used by the County. We
suggest the current language be changed to better clarify the purpose and reduce confusion.
Current Language:
Antenna and/or microwave dishes may be located on governmentally franchised utility poles (if applicable)
or poles owned by the County pursuant to the following regulations:
Proposed Language:
Antenna and/or microwave dishes may be located on poles owned or controlled by the County pursuant to
the following regulations:
Thank you again for this opportunity to make suggestions.
Regards,
Michael W. Agee
Senior Business Consultant
Duke Power
4w�
302
a�
A-*]
:.:... .
69 a
-ORDINANCE TO PLANNING BOARD (DRAFT) 10 r
a) County staff will utilize the services of a registered
professional engineer to confirm the statement
V0W%. made. in item 5) above. No tower shall be permitted
to exceed Its designed loading capacity. For all
I 1� towers attached to existing structures,'the statement
V • shall Include certification that the structure can
support the load superimposed from the tower. All
towers shall have the capacity to permit multiple
users; at a minimum monopole towers shall
accommodate two (2) users and self- support/lattice
or guyed towers shall, at a minimum accommodate
three (3) users.
l Standards of evaluation.
1) Tower height shall be measured from the base of the
• P. tower to the highest point of the proposed
t� k antenna(s)4o be lac ted atop a tower structure.
• r~�,� ,•. �'
i >> 2) Telecommunicalon towers shall conform with all of
" ,� the requirements of Sections 8.8.17a.1 a (a-a) and
8.8.17a.2 of the Zoning
Ordnance.
��At V45'�
"VA
Tower Inspection.
1) Telecommunication tower owners shall submit
report to the County Inspections Division certifying
structural and electrical integrity upon completion of
the initial construction and at intervals as specified
In this Section
2) Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner
and made available upon request to the Inspections
Division during regular business hours.
a) At least once every thirty -six (38) months, or.
thirty -six (361 months from the date of a co-
location aoaroval, a structural engineer who
Is regularly involved in the maintenance,
inspection and/or erection of
telecommunication towers shall Inspect the
tower and submit a report submitted to the
Inspections Division within a reasonable
time thereafter. At a minimum, this
inspection shall be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of this Ordinance and in
accordance with the tower inspections check
list provided in the EIA -222 (as amended
from time to time). This is considered a
major Inspection review.
09/04/2002 17:52 FAX 919 465 9113
SPECTRASITE CO3flIIJNICATIO
9 001
70
SpectraSite
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
To: NIr. Craig Benedict
Mr. Tom King
Orange County, NC Planning Departa.ent
Via Fax: 919 - 6443002
From: Jason Catalini
All House
SpectraSite Communications, Tower owner
Re: Text Amendments for Telecom Ordin- once
First and foremost, I wish to thank you for receiving our comments regarding the Orange
County Ordinance revisions. Based-on the latest revisions, SpectraSite Communications
provides the following comments:
1. Section 6 (a) (3), Exceptions to the Annut.l Telecommunications Projections Meeting
("APTW). This provision states that exci ptions to the APTM process will be
allowed in the case of `unforeseen events'. "Unforeseen events' is defined to include
the need to replace an existing telecoman nications tower. The ordinance also states
that co-location is encouraged and that pr or to a new tower being built, the applicant
must prove that an existing tower cannot *)e modified to meet the needs of the
applicant. Will towers that may be modified to accommodate additional providers be
considered under this exception or can to fivers be modified through an administrative
process such as a co-location? SpectraSite: is willing under certain circumstances to
replace, modify or extend existing towers but would like clarification as to what
procedures or processes SpectraSite woul d Have to follow under the revised
ordinance.
2. Section 6.18.2(d)(2), Existing towers that may be replaced. Can the Planning Board
define "equal or less visual impact" as it i elates to a replacement" of an existing tower
site. The standard seems to very vague at d overbroad.
3. Section 6.18.4, Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Towers. How does part
of this provision affect existing tower sites? Part of this provision seems to provide
the standards for building a new tower w th some of the provisions aimed at
regulating existing towers as well as new tower sites. Furthermore, SpectraSite does
09/04/2002 17:52 FAX 919 465 9113 SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATIO Q002
•r
71
not believe tower structural inspections at a required every three years. SpectraSite
should be able to provide structural analy, as on its existing towers only once as tower
sites do not generally become less smulu pally sound unless additional equipment is
placed on the tower, i.e., co4ocation. The ,efoM since your ordinance requires a
structural prior to approving a co- location on an existing tower, your major inspection
requirement seems to be redundant. Spect raShe does not feel this requirement is
necessary in order to meet the .County's rr xiuirement to ensure tower safety.
4. Section 8.8.17(a)(lXal Fall Zone area inc teased to 110' /6 of the tower height. Many '
existing and new towers are designed to collapse, not fall over, and therefore using
the tower height for a fall zone factor is a )t always necessary if a tower is built to
collapse within a certain radius. Spectres/ to requests that the /all zone radius be
reduced on a case by case basis with suffr dent documentation from a licensed and
certified engineer for the State of North Carolina
5. Fees. Although the County has decided not to decrease the fee requirements,
SpectraSite joins others in the wireless ins lustry who have opposed these very high
fee requirements. SpectraSite is more that t willing to explore other options such as
escrow accounts or using independent cos isultants. The current fee requirement is in
essence requiring Spectrafte and the win :less industry to subsidize the County's
outsourcing of certain aspects of a wirelea s siting application.
SpectraSite is a nationally recognized tower a nd telecommunicationsinfrastructure
company and wishes to work with the County • to help maximize the Use of existing
towers and infrastructure facilities. Please fm i enclosed some information on SpectraSite
owned towers located within Orange County ind a company brochure. Thank you for
your time and I look forward to working with Orange County on fiiture projects. Due to
the lateness of our notice, please excuse any c rversights.
Jason Catalini
Real Estate Manager, East
Sep 04.02 01:37p
t
American Tower Corp.
(704) 948 -8545 p.2
72
Mn w=ER
September 4, 2002
VIA TELEFACSIMILE: (919) 644 -3002,
AND-HAND-DELIVERY
Orange County Planning Board
c/o Mr. Craig Benedict, Director
Planning & Inspections Dept.
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Ordinance.
Dear Members of the Board and W. Benedict:
American Tower Corporation is one of the nation's largest wireless
communication infrastructure companies, with more than 14,000 telecommunication
facilities in our inventory, and 9 existing facilities in Orange County, NC. We have
established relationships with virtually every wireless provider in the country, allowing
us to aggressively market collocation space on these facilities. American Tower's
principle line of business is renting space on these facilities and providing related
services for a diverse range of wireless communications. These industries include
personal communications services, cellular, paging, two-way radio, specialized mobile
radio, enhanced 'specialized mobile radio, wireless local loop, LMDS and fixed
microwave, as well as radio and television broadcasters.
I am writing to comment on the proposed telecommunication facilities ordinance
currently under consideration by the Planning Board and the Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
My colleague, Ms. Elizabeth Hill of American Tower Corporation, appeared and
spoke to the joint meeting of these Boards on Monday, August 26. My comments here
are supplemental to those Ms. Hill has already provided. What follows are key points of
the proposed ordinance about which we are deeply concerned:
A. Application fee: The $10,000 application fee is, we believe, exorbitant.
Moroever, the proposed ordinance does not allow for a return of such
-fees as may be unused by the County and its consultants in a particular
case. We would ask that this fee be placed in an escrow account at the
time of payment, and drawn from as expenses accrue, with the balance
(if any) returned to the applicant at the conclusion of the review
process.
...:...:
Sep 04 02 01:37p American Tower Corp. 1 (7041 948 -8545
4� p.3
Orange County Planning Board 73
c/o Mr. Craig Benedict
September 4, 2002
Page 2
B. January Pre - application Meeting_ We respectfully disagree that in each
and every case, the licensed wireless communication carriers will know
for a certainty, by January of each year, their respective build -out plans
in a particular area. The proposed ordinance does not make any
accommodation for this or, I might add, for emergency placement of
temporary communication facilities that may be required or desirable in
times of natural or other disasters as a result of which landline
communications are unavailable'or overloaded. We request some
accommodation for emergencies or other considerations that are not
foreseen or identifiable at the start of any given year. To enact a law
otherwise provides the County and the industry no flexibility, and
overlooks the public safety aspects of wireless communications.
C. Inspections and Re-certification: The proposed ordinance seems at
odds with public statements of staff that the inspections and
certification requirements contained therein apply only to facilities
constructed after its effective date. To the contrary, §6.18.4(e)(5)(c)
states that all existing towers shall undergo a structural inspection
within 12 months of the date the ordinance is adopted. Second- the
additional structural, inspections and certification requirements are all
contained in § 6.18.4, under the preface that "all telecommunication
towers must meet the - following standards " (emphasis supplied)_
Consistent with staff's public comments on August 26, that preface
should read: "All telecommunication towers approved and constructed
following the effective date of this ordinance must meet the following
standards:" Any other approach, we suggest, applies later standards to
existing towers in an ex post facto manner.
1. County inspections: The staff inspections identified in
§6.18.4(e)(2)(b) are vague and provide no guidance to the industry. In
addition, presumably tower owners have no voice or control over the
individuals chosen by the County to conduct these inspections. These
provisions also raise a significant question of liability for damage to
persons or property caused by the inspections or methodologies used..
Controlled access to our facilities is a high priority, it is a guarantee we
make to our tenant wireless communication companies; and it is
among the reasons we restrict access to those with the proper training,
credentials, certification and oversight. By these provisions, the
County is taking upon itself these responsibilities. We would ask that
the Boards and County consider, instead, a detailed checklist of the
standards against which a facility is to. be evaluated, and allow the
industry to perform these evaluations and report those results
Sep 04 02 01:37p American Tower Corp. (704) 948 -8545 p.4
t
74
Orange County Planning Board
' c/o Mr. Craig Benedict
September 4, 2002
Page 3
identical to the approach allowed by the County wide respect to
structural evaluations in § 6.18.4(e)(2)(a). Moreover, we oppose the
provisions of the ordinance that allow the County to pass on, to the
industry, all costs of these inspections plus 10%, particularly when we
have no voice in the personnel chosen, the standards to be evaluated,
the time they will occupy, the methodologies they will employ — all
with no limit or ceiling on these expenses.
2. Existing towers: With respect to the structural analysis required for
existing towers in § 6.18.4(e)(5)(e), we would request that this
requirement be eliminated or at least waived for towers on which a
collocation has been placed within the last 3 years (as to which the
County should have in its possession the structural analysis completed
for the collocation). To require that all towers undergo this evaluation
when that has already been done as a part of recent collocations is
simply to impose additional unnecessary expenses on the industry, and
require the re- submission of documentation that the County
presumably retains in its records and archives.
We appreciate your consideration of these points. I will be present at the
Planning Board hearing this evening to answer questions and explain our position further.
Yours very truly,
ICAN TOWER CORD TION
illiam G. Howard
Zoning Manager
W GH:
_.
SEP-:04- -2002 02:16PM FROM- PENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291075 T -379 P.003/008 F-403
75
COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING
COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
September 4, 2002
1. APPROVAL PROCESS. Page 1. As written, the Ordinance
contemplates all applications - seeking approval of
communications towers less than One Hundred Fifty. ( 150') feet
In height be heard by the Board of Adjustments, and all
communications towers greater than One Hundred Fifty (150')
feet In height be heard by the :County Commissioners. There is
no logical basis for this bifurcated approval process. The Board
of Adjustments will be just as well suited to hear applications
for the taller communications towers.. It will likewise be a more
experienced board to hear such applications since it has so in
the past until this time. The Board of Adjustments should be
treated as a. quasi - judicial board, which makes for a more formal
and judicial setting in the hearing of the special use application.
The Board of Adjustments will act upon evidence taken and
apply that evidence to the standards promulgated by the County
Commissioners. The applications to be heard are technical
applications, to be decided upon by objective standards. It Is
unnecessary for the County Commissioners, policy makers, to
be burdened with this extra responsibility, and for a technical
application to be potentially treated as a political Issue.
2.. LIMITATIONS ON HEARING DATES. Section 8.4.1.a. Page 1
and 2:. Limiting hearing dates to twice per year Is not warranted
for either board. Likewise, it is not fair that every proposed
communications tower be presented in January of each year.
Someone will be human and forget about this requirement. An
annual meeting for carriers to discuss plans for the year, to the
extent they have been defined, is a good idea. But is it is not
fair to limit applications to those communications towers which
have been identified in January of each year. None of us is that
wise and foreseeing In all cases. The addition of the
"Unforeseen Circumstances" definition is good, but make it
more open ended and not so finite. Give staff some discretion
to determine if the application is justified in light of the
circumstances. There is no way that we can draft an ordinance
now that covers every possible scenario.
SEP -04 -2002 02:16PM FROM- PENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291076 T -379 P.004 /006 F -403
76
The following points are made in support of these statements.
a. The Speed of Light. Wireless communications operates
at the speed of light literally. Wireless deployments take
pace at break neck speeds. This is a fast paced industry.
The quick pace is driven by many factors, including, but
not limited to, ' the demands of existing customers for
better coverage, the demands of existing customers for
new and additional services, the need to meet the
growing capacity demands of the wireless network, the
obligation to meet the expectations of capital markets in
the deployment of services for return on investment, and
the obligation to provide wireless service In a given area
in a given time frame by the Federal Communications
Commission. This is just a small part of the picture.
b. Limitation, of New Technologies. Limiting hearings to
twice per year would unnecessarily handicap the wireless
industry. in Its deployment of new and additional coverage
and technologies. Wireless companies need flexibility to
on -a moments notice deploy new technology. The
Ordinance as written would prevent such rapid
deployment.
C. Unforeseen Events. Sometimes it becomes necessary to
construct .a new communications tower because of
unforeseen events. Examples include condemnations of
existing communications towers for road projects,
casualty of existing communications towers, blocking of
signals from new construction necessitating a relocation
of the communications tower, or the need to replace an
existing communications tower for capacity issues.
These are not issues that can be foreseen far enough in
advance so that proper application can be made.
d. Hearing Overload. If all applications are bundled together
for two (2) hearings, it will be an all day or all night
hearing. This is unfair to the citizens of Orange County
and unfair to the wireless industry. These will be very
technical applications with expert testimony which will
take some time to present. The applicable board will
want sufficient time to ask questions, to hear evidence,
and to contemplate the matter. This cannot happen if
there are six (6) applications to be heard which may take
SEP -Q4 -2002 02:17PM FROWPENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291075 T -379 P.005/008 F -403
•' ; 77
two (2) hours each to present. This is not logistically
feasible.
3. TOWER SEPARATION. Section 8.8.17a.1 a.d. Page 15. The Ordinance
prohibits a new communications tower from being located within one-
half (1 /2) mile of an existing communications tower, without
exception. Some exception should be made in those cases where the
existing communications tower is at capacity or cannot be expanded
to accommodate further coloration. It may ' be that the only way to
provide wireless coverage in a given area is to have a second
communications tower in the general vicinity of the existing
communications tower. It is unfair and discriminatory to those carriers
not located on the existing communications tower to prohibit them
from constructing a second communications tower In the general area.
In some cases, carriers can design around such ' a separation
requirement, but not in all cases. Most jurisdictions have an exception
to communications tower separation rules such as the inability to
colocate, or . an inability to modify the existing structure to
accommodate coloration, etc. For example, the communications
tower may not be spaced within one -half (1/2) mile of an existing
communications tower unless there is written documentation that (1) .
appropriate space on the existing communications tower is not
available; or (2) the applicant has made good faith efforts to negotiate
an agreemerit with the owner of the current existing communications
tower and has been unsuccessful, which must be documented in
writing; or (3) the equipment on the existing communications tower is
not compatible with the proposed equipment of the applicant; or (4)
the coverage objective of the applicant cannot be met at the location
of the existing communications tower; or (5) the existing
communications tower cannot not be reasonably modified to
accommodate additional coloration by the applicant.
In some cases It makes sense to group communications towers
together. If the wireless carrier can show by demonstrative evidence
that it cannot provide the necessary coverage without locating within
the prohibited one -half J1/2) mile area, it should be allowed to
construct a new communications tower in' this area if all other criteria
of the Ordinance are satisfied. . The impact at the site may be
increased; however, the overall visual impact in the general area is
decreased by grouping communications towers in some cases.
Section 8.8.17a.1.a.c. is not clear if grouping of communications
towers is allowed.
3
sip-44 2002 02:17PM
FROM- PENNINGTON AND LOTT
i
+18039291075 T -379 P.008/008 F -403
78
4. VISUALLY INTRUSIVE REQUIREMENTS. Section 6.18.4.b. Page 9.
This is ' an additional requirement. This new standard dictates that
towers be located in heavily treed areas to the extent possible. This is
fine as long as the search area contains a wooded tract with a willing
property owner that has access to a public right of way. There will be
locations in certain settings where there will be no surrounding
wooded vegetation to provide a natural cover. This is a given. Some
of these areas will be industrial or commercial settings where it makes
sense to have a communications tower. Be aware of this fact. Not all
towers can be hidden in the trees.
The second sentence of this section* is most troubling. This sentence,
regardless of vegetation, requires the applicant to prove that the
proposed communications tower will not be visually intrusive to
surrounding properties in the area. This Is an Impossible standard.
This is such a subjective standard that there. Is no way an applicant
can ever be successful in a hearing to the extent there is opposition.
First, what Is the definition of "visually intrusive"? If this means that
the communications tower is not visible, then the Ordinance is on its
face in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Verizon
Wireless cannot provide effective wireless coverage and capacity with
communications towers that are not visible from adjacent and
surrounding properties. This is a physical Impossibility, and the
Ordinance will. have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communications services in violation of federal law.
The better way to approach this Issue is to require objective standards
which can be evaluated and met. - Verizon Wireless cannot build
invisible communications towers, but it can use good sound judgment
In the selection of a site and the placement of the communications
tower on the site such that it is least visible and has the least visual
Impact on surrounding properties. Such objective standards include
the following types of things:
a. Limiting the height of the proposed communications
tower.
b. Limiting the type of communications tower that can be
used.
C. Regulating the distance and separation requirements of
the communications tower from an adjacent property line
or from a residential use.
d. Regulating the distance and separation requirement of the
communications tower from a public right of way.
_��.�_......._. �...�..��.......__.... 4:::. f:.:.'.::.._.. ntYi\ �.: �: :..:,:,ll \.AUq.:KU:.....4.1,.,:ti :':.:..:�•.i'�`a:.:.:.
SEP -Or -2002 02:1TPM FROM - PENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291075
t T -379 P -007 /008 F -403
a. Requiring that the communications tower be placed In a
wooded area to the extent that such exists . and Is
available for use,
f. Limiting lighting on the communications tower.
5• Fall zone. Section 8.8.17x.1 a.a., Page 14 (Site Plan Requirements),
and Section 8.8.178.2.a., Page 18. The fall zone requirements have
been increased by Ten (10) % percent. The first issue Is that there is
no definition for "fall zone" given in the Ordinance. I assume that this
means that distance within which the communications tower would
fall in the unlikely event it should fail, as certified by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina. Some jurisdictions
define the fall zone as the height of the communications tower (a one
for one ratio). Clarification is needed in this Ordinance. Also, the
increase In not necessary. Communications towers, and * especially.
monopoles which this Ordinance will dictate, do not fall over like pine
trees. In the unlikely event of a failure, the top of the communications
tower would buckle over at a designed point, and the top of the
communications tower would never even hit the ground. 1 can assure
You that the wind would not blow the tower along the ground as
suggested at the last meeting.
6. GROUND LIGHTING. Page 18. The Ordinance now requires that
lighting on the equipment building be shielded so as not to be visible
from adjacent properties. This is impossible. In a wide open area, a
Forty (40) watt light bulb may be visible from a mile a way. regardless
of the type. of shield used. This sentence- should be rewritten. The
standard should be that no light is allowed to be projected onto
adjacent, properties, not visible, for this is not possible. The light is for
security and safety reasons, both of 'Which are more - overriding
concerns than the potential visibility from adjacent properties. The
light can be isolated to light only the equipment building and the base
of the communications tower. No more, no less, but it will be visible
from outside the compound.
F:1V®tIZ0M1NC<OR.1N66 COUMY E0i4G101C0yQMMNT3 RIIOA =G T= ORD4VA = TO AMFAP THR ZONWO "al"4c¢ 01 OMNGZ COUMV
RBGARFINO.doe
79
SEP -04 -2002 02:17PM FROM- PENNINGTON AND LOTT +18039291075
.t T -379 P.008 /008 F -403
80
These comments have been prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless by:
Gary C. Pennington, Esquire
PENNINGTON & LOTT, LLP
P.O. Box 2844
1122 Lady Street, Suite 1010
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
803.929.1070
803.929.1075 Fax
garypennington @pennlawfirm.com
Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless communications.
The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice and data network
and approximately 30 million customers. Headquartered in Bedminster, ,NJ,
Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ)
and Vodafone . (NYSE and - LSE: VOD).
FACTS -AT -A- GLANCE
• Wireless Phone Customers - More than 29.6 Million
• Employees - 40,000
• U.S. Market Coverage - 49 of Top 50; 97 of Top 100
• Company Stores and Klosks - 1,220
• Digital Network Technology - Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA]
• . Switching Centers - 140
• Headquarters - Bedminster, NJ
• Area Headquarters:
• Northeast - Morristown, NJ
• Midwest - Schaumburg, IL
• South -Alpharetta, GA
. � West- Irvine, CA
t. 81
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY REGARDING
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS
Liz Hill (American Tower)
1. Instead of paying a $10,000.00 application fee for a new tower, amend Ordinance
to allow that money to be put into an escrow account.
2. Application fee schedule is unfair compared to application fees for other types of
buildings /development.
3. Liability Issues related to persons inspecting towers for structural stability after
tower has been built.
4. • Can review period for towers be performed at time of new co- location rather than
every 36 months? Can a structural report be submitted at these times rather than
an inspection?
5. Will periodic review of towers only be applied to new towers erected after
Ordinance adoption, or will it be retro - active? What criteria will be used in
Inspections?
Comments /Concerns from July 31, 2002 Stakeholder Meeting with Telecommunication
Groups (Verizon Wireless, Pennington & Lott LLP Spectrasite Crown Castle
International, Duke Communications Services, LPNC, Inc.)
1. Concerns with lower tower heights and bifurcated approval process.
2. Major concern over one time per year submittal requirement. Flexibility needed in
application submittal/review periods.
3. Need for clarification on definition of existing structure.
4. General confusion over language regarding antennas permitted as accessory
uses. ,
5, Question regarding the number of structures located In the County that are tall
enough to provide good co- location opportunities.
6. General confusion over the proposed section regarding co- locations, stealth and
non - stealth antennas.
7. Desire to keep co- location approvals at the staff level.
8. Review and inspection fees related to telecommunication facility approvals.
Tom
i - Ke: uroinance Amendment
.t
From: "Jeffrey W Riggins" <Jwdggin @dukecomsvcs.cQm>
To: "Tom King" <tking@co.orange.nc.us>
Date: 8/22/02 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Ordinance Amendment
Tom,
i reviewed the draft amendments on your website and would like to offer the
following comments /questions. I attempted to compare the amendments to the
existing ordinance that is available on your webpage but the sections and
page numbers didn't match up. Therefore, my comments are based on the
amendments only.
1) The provision for limiting new applications to two times per year is
very restrictive. i agree with the Board of Adjustment opinion that new
applications should be processed on as needed basis.
2) 6.18.1 - Why did you limit the height on stealth towers to 75'? This
seems inconsistent with your philosophy of encouraging towers designed for-
multiple carriers.
3) Does the language in 6.18.1 allow colocations on electric transmission
towers with an administrative review? I see the reference to transmission
towers, silos, and such in the definition for Existing Structure/Building
but I didn't find any language that permitted colocations on such
structures other than the reference In 6.18.1. Also, I would suggest
adding water tanks to the list of existing structures.
4) In section 6.18.1, you state that antennas may be placed on existing
structures if the equipment doesn't extend more that 20' above the
structure and heighttsetback limitations are met. 1 can live with the 20'
limitation but the setback requirement will eliminate the use of many of
our transmission towers. Keep in mind that transmission lines are often
built along property boundaries so a setback requirement would make it
Impossible to use those towers.
5) Section 6.18.2.d.1 says that antennas may be placed on existing towers
but I'm not sure that your intended for that to mean transmission towers as
well.
6) Would the language in 6.18.3 impact colocations on transmission towers?
7) is section S.18.3.e.7 referring to colorations on distribution power
poles (like the ones that run along the streets) owned by Duke Power?
8) Iri Section 6.18.4.b, you require a statement prepared by a professional
engineer certified In telecommunication facility design. You might want to
research this requirement because I am not aware of any such certification.
The statement that you are referring to is usually prepared by a structural
engineer that is a PE.
9) in Section 6.18.4.e, the inspection requirements are excessive.
10) What does Duke Energy need to do to submit properties to be included in
the Master Telecommunications Plan that is described In 6.18.5?
P
me. vralnance
83
• 11) in Section 8.8.1a.1, the requirement for a 4 hour balloon test on a
date scheduled 14 days in advance will be very difficult. The balloon tests
that we have conducted in the past were done on days with very little wind
because it is very hard to get the balloon up otherwise. Sometimes, the
vendor . that performs the test will make several attempts before getting an
acceptable day. In most cases, we take photos of the balloon test to submit
for SHPO review so I would recommend that you review this requirement.
12) In Section 8.8.17a.2.m, the emissions study requirement is excessive.
The carriers and tower owners are already required to maintain compliance
with the FCC guidelines. The requirement of up to 4 emissions studies per
year would be very costly.
Thanks.
Jeff Riggins
Business Development Manager
Duke Communication Services
704 -382 -4096 office
704904 -9935 mobile
704 -373 -4923 fax
om King - ORANGE COUNTY ZONING
84
From: "Gary Pennington" <GaryPennington @penniawfirm.com>
To: "Tom King (E- mail)" <tking@co.orange.nc.us>
Date: 8/22/02 6:06PM
Subject: ORANGE COUNTY ZONING
Tom, thanks for sending me the revised ordinance. It was a vast improvement over the last version. My
comments are limited and are attached hereto. l will see you on Monday. Thanks.
Gary C. Pennington
PENNINGTON & LOTT, LLP
1122 Lady Street, Suite 1010
P.O. Box 2844
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
803.929.1070
803.929.1075 Fax
The Information contained in this message and any attachments Is intended only for the use of the
Individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are
prohibited ffom copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by
return e-mail and delete the original message.
CC: "Andrea M. Meyer" <AndreaMeyer@penniawfirm.com >, "JOANNE ALLISON (E- mail)"
< Joanne .embree @verizonwireless.com>
paa
�. Tom King - COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONIr
ORDINANCE 'nF
GE COUN�
LR
COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING
COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
t: APPROVAL PROCESS. As written, the Ordinance contemplates all applications
seeking approval of communications towers less than One Hundred Fifty
0 501 feet in height be heard by the Board of Adjustments, and all
communications towers greater than One Hundred Fifty 0 501 feet in height
be heard by the County Commissioners. There is no logical basis for this
bifurcated approval process. The Board of Adjustments will be just as well
suited to hear applications for the' taller communications towers. it will
likewise be a more experienced board to hear such applications since it has
so in the past until this time. The Board of Adjustments should be treated as
a quasi - judicial board, which makes for a more formal and judicial setting in
the hearing of the special use application. The Board of Adjustments will act
upon evidence taken and apply that evidence to the standards promulgated
by the County Commissioners. The applications to be heard are technical
applications, to be decided upon by objective standards. It is unnecessary for
the County Commissioners, policy makers, to be burdened with this extra
responsibility, and for a.technicai application to be potentially treated 'as a
political issue.
2. LIMITATIONS ON HEARING DATES. Section 8.4.1.a. Limiting hearing dates to
twice per year is not warranted. Likewise, it is not fair that every proposed
communications tower be presented in January of each year. An annual
meeting for carriers to discuss plans for. the year, to the extent they have
been defined, is a good idea. But Is it is not fail to limit applications to those
communications towers which have been identified in January of each year.
None of us is that wise and foreseeing in all cases. The following points are
made in support of these statements.
a. The Speed of Light. Wireless communications operates at the speed of light
literally. Wireless deployments take pace at break neck speeds. This
is a fast paced industry. The quick pace is driven by many factors,
including, but not limited to, the demands of existing customers for
better coverage, the demands of existing customers for new and
additional services, the need to meet the growing capacity demands
of the wireless network, the obligation to most the expectations of
capital markets in the deployment of services for return on
Investment, and the obligation to provide wireless service in a given
area 'in a given time frame by the Federal Communications
Commission. This is just a small part of the picture.
b. Limitation of New Technologies. Limiting hearings to twice per year would
unnecessarily handicap the wireless industry in its deployment of new
and additional coverage and technologies. Wireless companies need
flexibility to on a moments notice deploy new technology. The
Ordinance as written would prevent such rapid deployment.
C. Unforeseen Events. Sometimes it becomes necessary to construct a new
communications tower because of unforeseen events. Examples
include condemnations of .
existing communications towers for road
projects, casualty of existing communications towers, blocking of
Tom King --COMMENTS REG
•r
,GNU FHF_ ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE (
ORANGE COU
signals from new construction necessitating a relocation of the communications tower, or
: the need to replace an existing communications tower for capacity issues.
These are not issues that can be foreseen far enough in advance so that
proper application can be made.
e. Hearing Overload. If all applications are bundled together for two (2)
hearings, it will be an all day or all night hearing. This is unfair to the
citizens of Orange County and unfair to the wireless industry. These
will be very technical applications with expert testimony which will
take some time to present. The applicable board will want sufficient
time to ask questions, to 'hear evidence, and to contemplate the
matter. This cannot happen if there are six (6) applications to be
heard which may take two (2) hours each to present. This is not
logistically feasible.
3. COLOCATION. Section 6.18.2.d.1. This section states that "telecommunications antennas may be
placed on existing communications towers within the context of that section of the
Ordinance concerning "telecommunications facilities as accessory uses This
statement appears to be misplaced. The preceding section 6.18.1, second
paragraph, already addresses colocations in any scenario It appears. Of. course,
Section 16.18.1 is titled in regard to "Stealth Telecommunications Towers '. All of
this makes the Ordinance confusing regarding the simple concept of colocation. The
Ordinance should be revised to set out a separate section altogether which simply
deals with the approval process for colocation of antennas on an existing
communications tower. This separate section should do the following:
a• Outline exactly what information is required to be submitted in the ' application package.
information will not be the same as it is for a new communications tower;
and
b• Outline the administrative approval process.
4. UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.2.b. I think the intent of the last sentence of this section is to
prohibit the construction of a new free standing communications tower in a utility
right of way that is not part of the structure supporting the electrical wires. That is
fine; however, the sentence as written could be taken out of context. I think a
qualifier should be added to this sentence to clarify the intent, as follows: "For
purposes of this Section 6.18.2.b, no freestanding towers constructed exclusively
for personal wireless services shall be permitted without a special use permit and
approval by the appropriate board." Otherwise, this sentence could be interpreted to
prohibit all new free standing communications towers.
5. GOVERNMENT FRANCHISED UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.3.e.7. Item a under this section
addresses non - stealth rooftop applications. However, item 7 thereunder takes a new
direction and concerns colocation on utility poles located in the public rights of way.
This issue should be treated as a separate section. it appears to be misplaced under
Section 6.18.3.e.7. Once this issue is resolved, the question presented is why is
colocation on utility poles located in public rights of way treated differently from
colocations on utility poles on private property? What is the distinction? Also, to
the extent that Orange County does not own the utility pole, does it still have the
right to allow colocation without the participation of the utility company that may
own and operate the pole? Finally, how is this section different than Section
6.18.2.b. which already addresses the use of utility poles? If the purpose of the
_—I King - COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNT7�
t
87
section is to overcome past bureaucratic obstacles to this type of installation, that is fine,
but distinguish more closely the parameters of collocating on utility poles located on
public versus private property.
7. ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION. Section 6.18.4.b. Wireless carriers generally utilize professional
engineers employed by communications tower manufacturers to design proposed
communications towers. These engineers are P.E.s who seal all communications
tower drawings and certify the very things referenced in this section. However,
generally, to my knowledge, there is no classification or certification possible for
"telecommunication facility design '. Therefore, it may not be possible to comply
with this provision. The communications tower drawings will be sealed by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina. This certification will
certify the capacity and design of the communications tower, and that the
communications tower meets the applicable ANSI standards. That should be
sufficient.
8. TOWER SEPARATION. Section 8.8.17a.1 a.d. The Ordinance prohibits a new communications
tower from being located within one -half (112) mile of an existing communications
tower, without exception. Some exception should be made in those cases where the
existing communications tower is at capacity or cannot be expanded to
accommodate further coloration. It may be' that the only way to provide wireless
coverage in a given area is to have a second communications tower in the general
vicinity of the existing communications tower. It Is unfair and discriminatory to
those carriers not located on the existing communications tower to prohibit them
from constructing a second communications tower in the general area. In some
cases, carriers can design around such a separation requirement, but not in all cases.
Most jurisdictions have an exception to communications tower separation rules such
as the inability to colocate, of an inability to modify the existing structure to
accommodate coloration, etc. In some cases it makes sense to group
communications towers together. If the wireless carrier can show by demonstrative
evidence that it cannot provide the necessary coverage without locating within the
prohibited one -half (1/2) mile area, it should be allowed to construct a new
communications tower in this area if all other criteria of the Ordinance are satisfied.
Tlie impact at the site may be increased, however, the overall visual impact in the
general area is decreased by grouping communications towers In. some cases.
Section 8.8.17a.1.a.c. is not clear if grouping of communications towers is allowed.
9. APPLICATION FEES. The wireless industry recognizes that there is a trend in North Carolina to
increase application fees for new communications facilities. This is a bad policy, and
an unfair policy. Much of this has been driven by the private sector engineering
companies seeking to put ordinances in place which they will then be paid to oversee
and enforce. To my knowledge, there is no other Industry which has such a small
footprint on the ground that must pay such an excessive fee. A fair fee is fine, but
Ten Thousand and no /100ths ($10,000.00) Dollars is axcess)ve. The cost of a fair
and unbiased consultant to assist the County Is possible without the need of such a
large fee. Consultant fees to review these types of applications may be reasonable,
3
... .... _ .............
i am rung - C.VMMtN 1,-j Kh(�iARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING
OF O
but this Ordinance cannot be written to create a cottage industry for engineers to review zoning
applications. There has to be some level of hug between the applicants and the governing bodies
when certain certifications are made. All costs to construct a wireless system are passed
onto the consumer. The wireless industry does not operate in a monopoly where all
carriers are guaranteed a fixed rate -of return. These high fees in ' same cases may
deter future deployment of wireless technology, and ultimately result in a lack of
state of the art services being made available to the citizens of Orange County.
Orange County should embrace wireless technology, and pass laws which encourage
the rapid deployment of the same. Such fees have the opposite impact. Local
governments pass legislation every .day to encourage economic development in
communities. The wireless industry has' asked for no such special economic
incentives. However, do not underestimate .the impact on the local economy by the
deployment of wireless technology, the hiring of employees in the wireless industry,
and the use of this technology by Orange County citizens. A more reasonable fee in
light of the services rendered by the County is requested.
f: V9R1Z MMRANGa COUNTY IANIN=MMD= RHOMMNO 710 ORDMANCE TO AMMO TM ZONMO ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
REOAWINQdw
4
E COU
M
.._......,_._. _._.. _....__._... _.... .................. .
:•ge•.• : , ••''.'� :t�:,:•.:iv'_L� �.:._... raia::• �wx !�iT.:':v: ^.tit:d:.a.,,.:i+i'. `_.;:tV�.olw:�w.li�l. •..__. ,dtitii�C::m....,..aq: a;:G;t, tr ..t. �..x,.. _cu„ ..•.._
owe 1. 0%11 ty — vw�nwiL+v 1 v
�MLJINU I Nt UKL
INANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNT rd
M.
These comments have been prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless by:
Gary C. Pennington, Esquire
PENNINGTON & LOTT, LLP
P.O. Box 2844
1122 Lady Street, Suite 1010
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
803.929.1070
803.929.1075 Fax
gatypenniihgton@pennlawfirm.com
Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless communications. The company
has the largest nationwide wireless voice and data network and approximately 30 million
customers. Headquartered in Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
Communications (NYSE:VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOO).
FACTS -AT -A- GLANCE
• Wireless Phone Customers - More than 29.6 Million
• Employees - 40,000
• U.S. Market Coverage - 49 of Top 50; 97 of Top 100
• Company Stores and Kiosks - 1,220
• Digital Network Technology - Code Division Multiple Access (COMA]
• Switching Centers - 140
• Headquarters - Bedminster, NJ
• Area Headquarters:
• Northeast - Morristown, NJ
• Midwest - Schaumburg, IL
• South - Alpharetta, GA
• West - Irvine, CA
5
_ ...._ ........... ..... .... ...._. ......... .._.._._.. __..._ ............. ......._..._ .... .. ._
FUG-27-2002 3s18PM ORANGE CTY MGR N0.913
�.
.t
COMMENTS REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING
as ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY REGARDING
COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
1. APPROVAL PROCESS. As written, the Ordinance contemplates
all applications seeking approval of communications towers less
than One Hundred Fifty - 0 501 feet in height be heard by the
Board of Adjustments, and all communications towers greater
than One. Hundred Fifty (1501) feet in height be heard by the
County Commissioners. There is no logical basis for this
bifurcated approvat process. Ths Board of Adjustments will be
just as well. suited to hear applications for the taller
communications towers. It will likewise be a more experienced
board to hear such applications since it has so in the past until
this time. The Board of Adjustments should be treated as a
quasi-judicial board, which makes for a more formal and judicial
setting in the hearing of the special ;use application. The Board
of Adjustments will act upon evidence taken and apply that
evidence to the standards promulgated by the County
Commissioners. The applications to be heard are technical
applications, to be decided upon by objective - standards. It is
unnecessary for the County Commissioners, policy makers, to
be burdened with this extra responsibility, and for a technical
application to be potentially treated as a political issue.
2. LIMITATIONS ON HEARING DATES. Section 8.4.1.a. Limiting
hearing dates to twice per year is not warranted.. Likewise, it is
not fair that every proposed communications tower be
presented in January of each year. An annual meeting for
carriers to discuss plans for the year, to the extent they have
been defined, is a good idea. But is it is not fair to limit
applications to those communications towers which have been
Identified in January of each year. None of us is that wise and
foreseeing in all cases. The following points are made In
support of these statements.
a. The Speed of Light. Wireless communications operates
at the speed of light literally. Wireless deployments take
pace at break neck speeds. This is a fast paced industry.
The quick pace is driven by many factors, including, but
not limited to, the demands of existing customers for
better coverage, the demands of existing customers for
new and additional services, the need. to meet the
growing capacity demands of the wireless network, the
obligation to meet the expectations of capital markets in
90
r
._.,. W_.._.:...__. _....._.._ .................... ._.. _........ ... ...... ..... ......... _. .
��p,.,:,,�:,'.:: ,; •:aa,, ^• �; �Sasa. al•,: n,..• 3: �is? 1dti:: WOt�:+; i:<....._ 1. S. �nNa,:.....,,....,... �. n.. �...,....._........_...,,_.,_......:........,_.. v_. .........,_..,...:_...,........ _. �.• ................... .. ........._......._..._.. _._......._...._.__...... _
S,
' A►JG . 27.2002
3:19PM ORANGE CTY MGR NO.913 P.7 /11
_. 91
the deployment of services for return on investment, and
the obligation to provide wireless service In a given area
In a given time frame by the Federal Communications
Commission. This is just a small part of the picture.
b. Limitation of New Technologies. Limiting hearings to
twice per year would unnecessarily handicap the wireless
Industry in Its deployment of new and additional coverage
and technologies. Wireless companies need flexibility to
on a moments . notice deploy new technology. The
Ordinance as • written would prevent such rapid
deployment,
C. Unforeseen Events. Sometimes it becomes necessary to
construct a new communications tower because of
unforeseen events. Examples include condemnations of
existing communications towers for road projects,
casualty of existing communications towers, blocking of
signals from new construction necessitating a relocation
of the communications tower, or the need to replace an
existing communications tower for capacity issues.
These are not issues that can be foreseen far enough in
advance so that proper application can be made.
d. Hearing Overload. if all applications are bundled together
for two (2) hearings, it will be an all day -or all night
hearing. This is unfair to the citizens of Orange County
and unfair to the wireless industry. , These will be very
technical applications with expert testimony which will
take some time to present. The applicable board will
want-sufficient time to ask questions, .to hear evidence,
and to contemplate the matter. This cannot happen If
there are six (6) applications to be heard which may take
two (2) hours each to present. This is not logistically
. feasible.
• 3. COLOCATiON. Section 6.18.241. This section states that
" telecommunioations antennas may be placed on existing
communications towers within the context of that section of the
Ordinance conceming "telecommunications facilities as accessory
uses ". • This statement appears to be misplaced. The preceding
section 6.18.1, second paragraph, already addresses colocations in
any scenario it appears. Of course, Section 16.18.1 is titled In regard
to "Stealth Telecommunications Towers ", All of this makes the
Ordinance confusing regarding the simple concept of colooation. The
-- �_ -,::�: gay:,.,,.......;,.. �, .._.._.._.._...,...,.:- ...� -�.. ,,,...,.,.....�..
AUG.27.2002 3 :19PM ORANGE CTY MGR
i.
s
NO.913 P.8i11
W
Ordinance should be revised to set out a separate section altogether
which simply deals with the approval process for colocation of
antennas on an existing communications tower. This separate section
should do the following:
a. Outline exactly what information is required to be submitted in
the application package. This information will not be the same
as it Is for a new communications tower; and
b. Outline the administrative approval process.
4. UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.2,b,' I think the intent of the last
sentence of this section is to prohibit the construction of a new free
standing communications tower in a utility right of way that is not part
of the structure supporting the electrical wires: That Is fine; however,
the sentence as written could be taken out of context. i think a
qualifier should be added to this sentence to clarify the intent, as
follows: "For purposes of this Section 6.18.2.b, no freestanding
towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless services shall be
permitted without a speclal use permit and approval by the• appropriate
board.' Otherwise, this sentence could be interpreted to prohibit all
new .free standing communications towers.
b. GOVERNMENT FRANCHISED UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.3.e.7.
Item a udder .this section addresses non - stealth rooftop applications.
However, item 7 thereunder takes a new direction and concerns
colocation on. -utility poles located In the public rights of way. This
issue should be treated as a separate section. It appears to be
misplaced under Section 6.18.3.e.7. Once this issue is resolved, the
question presented is why. is colocation on utility poles located in
public rights of way treated differently from colocations on utility
poles on private property? What is the distinction? Also, to the
extent that Orange County does not own the utility pole, does it still
have the right to allow colocation without the participation of the
utility company that may own and operate the pole? Finally, how is
this section, different than Section 6.18.2.b. which already addresses
the use of utility poles? if the purpose of the section is to overcome
past bureaucratic obstacles to this type of Installation, that is fine, but
distinguish more closely the parameters of Collocating on utility poles
located. on public versus private property.
RJG.27.2002 3 :19PM ORANGE CTY MGR NO.913 P.9 /11
.
.4 93
6. ENGINEERING. CERTIFICATION. Section 6.18.4.b. Wireless carriers
generally utilize professional engineers employed by communications
tower, manufacturers to design proposed communications towers.
These engineers are P:E.s who seal all communications tower
drawings and certify the very things referenced in this section.
However, generally, 'to my knowledge, there is no classification or
certification possible for "telecommunication facility design ".
Therefore, it may not be possible to comply with this provision. The
communications tower drawings will be sealed by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina. This certification will
certify the capacity and design of the communications tower, and that
the communications tower meets the applicable ANSI standards. That
should be sufficient.
7. TOWER SEPARATION. Section 8.8.17a.1 a.d. The Ordinance
prohibits a new communications tower from being located within one -
half (112) mile of an existing communications tower, without
exception. Some exception should be made in those cases where the
existing communications tower is at capacity or cannot be expanded
to accommodate further coloration. It may be that the only way to
provide wireless coverage in a given area is to have a second
communications tower . in the general vicinity of the existing
communications tower. It is unfair and discriminatory to those carriers
not located on the existing communications tower to prohibit them
from constructing a second communications tower in the general area.
In some cases, carriers can design around such a separation
requirement, but not in all cases. Most jurisdictions have an exception
to communications tower separation rules such as the inability to
colocate, or an inability to modify the existing structure to
accommodate coloration, etc. in some cases it makes sense to group
communications towers together. If the wireless carrier can show by
demonstrative evidence that it cannot provide the necessary coverage
without locating within the prohibited one -half (112) mile area, it
should be allowed to construct a new communications tower in this
area if all other criteria of the Ordinance are satisfied. The impact at
the site may be increased, however, the overall visual impact In the
general. area is decreased by grouping communications towers In some
cases. Section 8.8.17a.1.a.c. is not clear if grouping of
communications towers is allowed.
AUG.27.2002 3 :19PM ORANGE CTY MGR
S NO.913 P.10i11
.i
94
S. APPLICATION FEES. The wireless industry recognizes that there is a
trend in North Carolina to increase. application fees for new
communications facilities. This is a bad policy, and -an unfair policy.
Much of this has been driven by the• private sector engineering
companies seeking to .put ordinances In place which they will then be
paid to oversee and enforce. To my knowledge, there is no other
industry which has such a small footprint on the ground that must pay
such an excessive fee. A fair fee is fine, but Ten Thousand and
no /100ths (010,000.00) Dollars is excessive. The cost of a fair and
unbiased consultant to assist the County is possible without the need
of such a large fee. Consultant -fees to review these types of
applications may be reasonable, but this Ordinance cannot be written
to create a cottage industry for' engineers to review zoning
applications. There has to be some level of trust between the
applicants and the governing bodies when certain certifications are
made. All costs to construct a wireless system are passed onto the
consumer. The wireless Industry does not. operate in a monopoly
where all carriers are guaranteed a fixed rate of return. These high
fees in some cases may deter future deployment of wireless
technology, and ultimately result in a lack of state of the art services
being made available to the citizens of Orange- County. Orange
County should embrace wireless technology, and pass laws which
encourage the rapid deployment of the same. Such fees have the
opposite impact. Local 'governments pass legislation every clay to
encourage economic development In communities. The wireless
industry has asked for no such special economic incentives. However,
do not underestimate the impact on the local economy by the
deployment of wireless technology, the hiring of employees in the
wireless industry, and the use of this technology by Orange County
citizens. A more reasonable fee in light of the services rendered by
the County is requested.
MVft ?' N=FWN:G2 COUNW Z0KWGWCL%f4EM8VR4.Vt M M OMNANM M A&MM TO ZOMMG oED(NAZIC% Of ORANCM COUN"
Rec�wnara aee .
y.
... .M,... , a. r... .`•a.• w .. _. ....
._..,..... •.......w .... .. .. ....... .._ .. ... . ...__.... �.. :5\4:51:: wa••....._r•4.;i' it '.4:t:: \4.:..\::ti.,y;'..:::.u:
n.0 a....\..\..... ... _w ..,..._u.w.\: e...v . ....... ... ...a..... ..t.....w .. ..0 , u .. ..v.t. e41 :.... ...u.. ..0 ....
.4hi..; w . ;:iSva.tii'atCSS� atii; a ,.\,:\�ti1.Cn.::1�5�.5;.\.15tW'e t�u�h�v`�::w'i.� {;i^ •.a . .
RUG .27.2002 31V 19pM ORANGE &Y MGR
_ NO.913 P.11 /11
95
These comments have been prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless by:
Gary C. Pennington, Esquire
PENNINGTON & LOTT. LLP
P.O. Box 2844,
1122 Lady Street, Suite 1010
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
803.929.1070
803.929.1075 Fax
garypennington @penniawfirm.com
Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless communications.
The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice and data network
and approximately 30 million customers. Headquartered in Bedminster, Ni,
Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications (NYSE :VZ)
and Vodafone (NYSE and . LSE: VOD).
FACTS -A7 A- GLANCE
• Wireless Phone Customers - More than 29.6 Million
• Employees - 40,000
• U.S. Market-Coverage - 49 of Top 50; 97 of Top 100
• Company Stores and Klosks - 1,220
Digital Network Technology - Code Division Multiple Access [CDMA1
• Switching Centers - 140
• Headquarters - Bedminster, NJ
• Area Headquarters:
• Northeast - Morristown, NJ
Midwest - Schaumburg, IL
• South - Alpharetta, GA
• West - Irvine, CA
Tom King - August262002.doc __ - - -.. --- ___... _...__ __ ... _ .._.. .
Page 1
Am
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 26, 2002
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session on
Monday, August 26, 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: Barry Katz, Crauford Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel
Preston, Howard McAdams, Jay Bryan, Maria Tad and Renee Price
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding -Ray and Vice Chair Hunter
Schofield. Jay Bryan was the substitute Vice- Chair.
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 Barry Jacobs referred to all of the information in front of the Board of County
Commissioners and identified the different colored paper articles — blue and orange - about Person
County's moratorium on telecommunications towers. There was also a purple and a green sheet that
dealt with Carrboro's annexation petition process.
B.. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -
Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments — Planning Board member Jay Bryan
presided over this portion of the Public Hearing because the Chair and Vice -Chair were both absent.
Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced item #1, which was an abridged edition of what is
in the package. In March of this year the County invoked a 6 -month moratorium on telecommunication
towers. This moratorium expires September 6, 2002. The staff has been meeting with the industry and
with stakeholders to get some ideas on the draft ordinance. Craig Benedict went over some of the new
provisions. Section A has to do with new height and process restrictions. The suggestion is that class B
special use permits will be those towers that are less than 150 feet. Any tower more than 150 feet will
go to the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Section B is a suggestion that if
someone brings in a tower with four potential sites or•users, then they can go through the older process
of 200 feet and below being a class B special use permit. This is a special incentive for co- location.
Section C is a yearly Pre - Application conference that would occur in December or January of
each year. This would be an open meeting where industry providers would be invited to discuss the
intent to locate new towers within the County for the year. This might encourage co- location. The staff
is suggesting a twice a year submittal of tower applications. The Board of Adjustment is concerned
about having three towers to consider at one meeting. This is still under consideration.
97
2
Section D Is higher technical standards and a new fee structure, which will help the County
bring on consultants to assist in the application process.
Section E is periodic inspections for major and minor problems once or twice a year. This was
not in the ordinance before. This is to make sure that the structural integrity of the tower Is still there and
that any special use standards are still being upheld.
Section F is the Master Telecommunications Plan. There will be a placeholder in the ordinance
for this when it is adopted.
Section G Is a requirement to submit a picture of the balloon test to staff and to notify residents
of this test. This also includes some separation requirements, but there will be some exceptions.
Section H Is a fee schedule change for both applications and inspections. Building inspection
fees will be $20 per linear foot for new towers. Zoning review fees are $10,000 for a class A process
and $8,500 for a class B process. The majority of the monies will go to a consultant to help review the
application. He said that this is a time consuming process and the fees are indicative of the time spent
to review the applications.
He said that after discussion of these items for about two years, the idea is to bring these items
to the Planning Board at their September 4'" meeting and then bring it back to the Board of County
Commissioners on September Ir. Under this new ordinance, the process will start in January of next
year. Between the adoption of this ordinance and the first submittal of applications, we need to adopt
the Master Telecommunications Plan. This plan includes making available public and quasi - public
properties for use to locate towers (i.e., fire stations, voluntary ag districts, etc.). This needs to be
adopted before the first set of applications.
Craig Benedict pointed out an error on the gold sheet in the motion. The date in the motion
should be September 17"' and not September 201'.
Questions from Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Carey asked about Section G and if there were any other issues besides visual
that warrants this provision. Craig Benedict described the difference between the general.and specific
standards. This section is putting more standards in the general category so that all towers will have to
comply with the general standards.
Commissioner Carey asked about the rationale for no more applications until after the meeting
at the beginning of the year. Craig Benedict explained that the meeting would identify who needs new
towers within the year. This would Identify potential co- location opportunities because the industry
providers would be meeting together. There will be some emergency situations that are not identified at
the meeting.
Commissioner Carey asked about the exceptions to the 1/2 -mile separation. Craig Benedict
said that a tower could exist that is only able to hold one user. If someone wants to put another tower
right beside this one, then they will have to explain why the tower could not be replaced with one that
could accommodate more users. If the tower has four users and they can show that that Is the area
they need to service, then the tower would be allowed.
Commissioner Brown is concerned that the public may see that the presentation
accommodates the cell tower industry. She noted that in fact the Board of County Commissioners is
concerned about the towers and how they affect the public. She wants clarification on the stealth
towers, particularly the one on 1-40 at RTP that looks like a pine tree at the top. She asked if there was
a more elaborate idea about when the stealth towers are part of the terrain and do not look more
ridiculous than the normal ones. Craig Benedict said that they would encourage multi - purpose sites and
co- location sites. Anytime these sites have a public purpose the County can set what the tower will look
like. The more cell users there are the lower the towers. Some towers could blend in with existing
structures such as a silo. Some stealth towers could be shorter than some pine trees. The staff is also
looking at attaching new telecommunications equipment to the electric power transmission lines.
Commissioner Brown said that she was glad to see the part about the new payment schedule
and is interested about the consultants and what type it would be. She asked if the consultant would
ae 2
Tom Ki66 - August262002.doc ! ~+ Page 3
W
work for the County's interest and the citizens. Craig Benedict explained that the consultants would be
looking out for the interests of the ordinance. The consultant would look at the application material and
the technical aspects. The County could also have a consultant to market public sites in the County.
This would be a different type of consultant.
Commissioner Brown asked how many towers would be out of compliance after this ordinance,
particularly with the lighting. Craig Benedict said that there are about 50 towers in the County. The FAA
regulates lighting. Commissioner Brown asked about lights around the base of the tower and Craig
Benedict said that we could control that. This is not specifically addressed in this ordinance, but can be
added. Commissioner Brown asked about going back into existing sites to fix the lighting problem.
Craig Benedict said that he thinks the industry can work with the County with light pollution. This will be
added into the ordinance.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the six -month moratorium and if it included the towns and
Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the tower behind Lowes on US 70 and if
we could invite the towns to be a part of the process. This tower has no aesthetics. Craig Benedict said
that the towns could be brought into our Master Telecommunications Plan. Commissioner Halkiotis
wants us all to work together.
Commissioner Gordon asked about something not in the hearing but in the Master
Telecommunications Plan. Craig Benedict referred her to page 16 of the agenda. He said that they will
bring to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board a Master Telecommunications Plan
(MTP) and if they adopt it, it will become a part of the ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon asked about how the public sites would be specified. Craig Benedict .
said that there would be a public hearing on all of the sites that want to be a part of the MTP.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the process if someone volunteers a site. Craig Benedict said that
this process has not been developed yet. If the MTP is not adopted, then this ordinance is still better
than the existing one.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that there be criteria and guidelines for the MTP.
Chair Jacobs said that they would put the Master Telecommunications Plan on the September
3rd agenda because of the short time left in the moratorium.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the. ordinance state that there will be a sign about the balloon
tests for residents near a tower.
Chair Barry Jacobs referred to news articles about Person County's towers. Person County
hired some. consultants from Greensboro that reviews all tower applications for compliance. He pointed
out some differences on page 12, item c -5. Person County has wording where they want the applicant
to show that the site is the least visually intrusive. He asked if there was anything like this In our
ordinance. Craig Benedict said that there were inferences. This can be added to the ordinance in item
c -5.
Chair Jacobs also pointed out that Person County uses 110 % of the height for a fall zone
instead of 100 %. He asked Craig Benedict to look into this because it seems to add a margin of .
additional safety.
Chair Jacobs asked about the general thrust of the ordinance. He wants to make it is as easy
possible to have co- location and make it as difficult as possible to have taller towers. He wonders if we
have adequately accomplished this in the ordinance. Craig Benedict pointed out the major incentive for
co- location will be to allow a class B if the tower has four users. He thinks this ordinance is trying to
meet the balance between height and amount of users and trying to bring the towers down overall.
Chair Jacobs stated that we need to investigate the balance of these towers both with
telecommunication and the environment. He distributed an article on birds and telecommunication
towers from the Internet and asked that we invite a bird specialist from one of the universities to look at
the flight patterns in this'area so that we do not put towers in bird flyways.
Commissioner Carey asked the Planning staff how we would respond to any public versus
private sites and the criteria that we would use so that biases will not come up between the County and
other entities. Craig Benedict said that they were discussing .making voluntary ag districts a preferred
Tom King-*
ing Aug6st262d02.doc
Page 4
W
site so that farmers could continue their farming operation. The staff is going to look at public
competition.
Commissioner Brown wanted to clarify the process of notification of the balloon test for locating
towers. She asked if the applicant pays for this to make sure that the residents are notified. Craig
Benedict said that the applicant provides a mailing list of residents within a certain radius. The staff
sends letters to the applicant. The ordinance does not say that if the balloon can be seen, the tower is
turned down. The balloon test gives a perspective about where the tower will be.
Commissioner Brown asked about the 150 -foot cut off with the Board of Adjustment and stated
that the public is concerned about hoW to present their concerns to the Board of Adjustment. Craig
Benedict said that the majority of the towers over the past couple of years have been between 150 and
200 feet. The 150 feet is a number that would seem to capture the majority of the applications and allow
them to be heard by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the Board decided to change. from 150 feet or lower would
there have to a public hearing? County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that it would have to be 75 -100
feet as the lower limit. He said that as long as the special use permit process is above 75 feet, we are
within the range of the present ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the visual intrusiveness of a tower and the Board of County
Commissioners may have to decide whether something is intrusive. She would hope that the Planning
Board would think about this. She wants to encourage co- location and something that is not visually
intrusive.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that there is no difference between a class A and a class B special use
permit as far as the standards. The only difference is with the process and the audience.
Commissioner Brown said that to her the standards would be not to be able to see any of these
facilities. She would like them to be constructed in a way that is not visible because they are eyesores.
Craig Benedict said that there are federal government requirements regarding cell tower communication.
Commissioner Brown asked why the towers could not be covered. Craig said that in the future the
towers might be as tall as the utility poles. The height of the towers is coming down, as there are more
users.
Questions from Plannina Board
Barry Katz asked about the companies that build these sites and if there is any concern about
these companies, which are now going bankrupt. Craig Benedict said that there have been changes in
the industry and we are trying to counteract the change by having a strong co- location ordinance to keep
the tower builders in the process and bring other users in.
Barry Katz asked Craig Benedict if he knew about how many would apply for these
telecommunications towers in January. Craig Benedict stated that normally there are only 3-4
applications per year. He does not see a major rush of more or less applications in the coming year.
Barry Katz asked about item V in number four. He said that there is no cover about these
buildings and asked if this is something to consider. Craig Benedict will look at landscaping standards of
these poles and structures.
Barry Katz made reference to the Master Telecommunications Plan and asked if publicly
owned land would also have to pay an application fee. Craig Benedict said that they would try to keep
the process as equitable as possible.
. - Barry Katz asked if a resident sees the balloon during a test would the application be denied
and Craig Benedict said no. The balloon test is more of a perspective of where the tower will lie. Barry
Katz asked if the balloon tests could be done when the leaves are off the trees. Craig Benedict said that
maybe they would look at this possibility in January.
Barry Katz made reference to page 9 and appearance issues. He said that the final decision
rests on the Planning Director or his designee. He asked if someone else could see this through. Craig
Benedict said that there are parts of the ordinance that are more subjective than objective. At this time,
there is no architectural review commission about how antennas can be incorporated into buildings.
.. . ...... .... ..... .... ...... _.......... ....... ..... ... .......... _. ... ........._.__................... ..... ........ .........
,_... .,. n -. _..........,...:
'Tom King - August262002.doc Page 5
100
Renee Price asked about balloon tests and the time of day it is done and the color of the
balloon and if they could add guidelines to address this issue. Craig Benedict said that the ordinance
specifies a red balloon but does not address time of day. Renee Price asked about the notification
process because she is concerned about electromagnetic fields and co- locating towers near schools
and she wants this to be considered. Craig Benedict said that they could provide information about this
issue to the public that addresses all electromagnetic concerns, etc. He said that recent information is
that there is more electromagnetic radiation in your house than what emulates from these towers.
Renee Price asked about the health concerns of the residents versus the Planning
Department's health information and if there is a conflict. Craig Benedict said that there was general
nationwide information about the health risks associated with towers of this type and that the general
health risks are waged against the criteria within the ordinance and the provision of providing
telecommunication facilities in a neighborhood are the primary concerns of promoting new towers.
Renee Price asked about the end of moratorium and Craig Benedict said that it ends on
September 6u'. On September Ir, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the new ordinance,
there could be some applications that have been submitted between that time. The new ordinance
requires that these applications that have not been acted upon would fall under the new ordinance.
Renee Price asked about the reviews within the ordinance and if existing towers would be
subject to review and Craig Benedict said no. These reviews are for new towers only. Renee Price
asked if these existing towers can be added to the reviews and he said that the Board of County
Commissioners would have to make that determination.
Ted Treibel made reference to tower inspections on page 13, item V and said that he does not
think you get a valid inspection from the ground and that the wording needs to be changed. He said that
you need to check up closely and not only from the ground. Craig Benedict noted this.
Jay Bryan asked if a strobe light could be prohibited under certain circumstances. Craig
Benedict said that at less than 200 feet you could possibly prohibit them but a lot of these items are
under FAA.
Public Comment
Gary Pennington, who was representing Verizon Wireless, distributed a hand out with four
issues. He stated that Verizon has over 30 million customers and is committed to providing quality
service. Regarding general issues about the industry, he said that we are becoming a wireless society.
In order to implement this, it is going to be necessary to build the infrastructure to support this use.
Presently, over 115 million people are using wireless communications in the United States today. He
said that every day over 100,000 calls are made to 911 using wireless phones. Regarding the
ordinance, he asked that the County work with the industry and not make it so overly difficult that the
growth of the technology is suppressed. He thinks that the ordinance is well written, but he gave some
written comments. He said that the industry likes objective criteria so that they know what to expect with
the application process. In some instances, the cost to prepare an application could range between
$30,000- 50,000. He requested that one body hear the tower applications — the Board of Adjustment -
which has more experience in hearing such matters as these. He said that it was always his preference
to be before a non - partisan board so that a technical application is heard by a technical board. He made
reference to the limitations on the hearing dates and asked that the application process not be limited to
only twice a year. Another point is co- location and he said that he would like to see a separate part of
the ordinance that deals explicitly with the co- location process. He said that Verizon does encourage co-
location. He said that the reality is that In order to provide the coverage needed for this technology, new
towers will need to be built.
Liz Hill with American Tower commented on the application fee and she stated that this is ten
times over any other project. She said that since the bulk of the application fee is for the consultant, it
might work to put the $9,000 into an escrow fund for the consultant to draw off of. Then if it does not
take $9,000 the industry would not have to pay the full amount. Her other concerns were with tower
ownership and tower maintenance. She asked if the periodic review would apply to all towers in
fpm King - August262002.doc Page 6
101
existence now, or only towers built under this ordinance. She does not know of any other place that
requires a 36 -month structural analysis. She said that if a carrier has co- located on a tower, or if the
tower has had a structural modification in the 36 months, then a structural analysis would have been
required anyway. She made reference to visual inspections and asked if this would be included in the
36 -month structural analysis. Since there would be a full review every 36 months, then why have other
inspections during the year unless something critical happens: She then spoke about the financial
viability of the tower companies. She said that, as a tower owner, they sign long-term contracts with
carriers. Even if they go out of business, there is still a contract in place and whomever they sell the
asset to, they still have to abide by that long -term contract. The tower will still be an operating entity for
the carriers on the tower and the name on the fence would change.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the
proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
County Commissioners no sooner than September 17, 2002.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Presentation: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Amendments
Discussion of County Response to amendments in Article 15 of the Carrboro Land Use
Ordinance applicable in the Northern Transition Area.
Craig Benedict gave a brief introduction to this item.
Planning Systems Coordinator Gene Bell stated that this item is an analysis by Planning staff of
the amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. As per the terms of the Joint Planning
Agreement, the County reviews the amendments to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances. In this
case, the amendments with the village mixed use provisions of the Carrboro land use ordinance were
submitted by Winmore Land Management, LLC. The agenda materials include the materials from
Carrboro's May 28'" meeting (pp. 35 -56). The staff looked for consistency with the Joint Planning
Agreement and the small area plan for Carrboro's northern study area. The analysis is on pages 29 -34.
He said that there are three amendments that he is concerned with. Item 1 — this amendment would
have allowed the Board of Aldermen to approve projects whose development standards did not
specifically meet all provisions spelled out in the Carrboro land use ordinance. The staff's finding was
that this was inconsistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Item 6 — the amendment was that brick
borders no longer be required on sidewalks. The staffs finding was that this amendment was
consistent, but the Board of Aldermen did not adopt it. He was told that the board wanted to keep this
requirement as a "signature detail that has been used in downtown and in the villages." Item 10 — the
request was to increase impervious coverage in developments from 50 -65 %. The staff's finding was
that an increase in impervious surface would be inconsistent. The Board of Aldermen opted to keep the
coverage for development at 50 %.
Gene Bell said that the Board of Alderman acted on this on May 28"', but this does not preclude
the Board of County Commissioners from making additional comments. The administration
recommendation is that the Board receives this information and discusses the desirability of a formal
response to the Town of Carrboro.
Chair Jacobs asked that Craig Benedict expound on how Carrboro is going to proceed.
Craig Benedict said that on Friday afternoon, the Town of Carrboro, through the County
Manager's office sent us information that for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting on August 271,
they would be receiving ,petitions for voluntary annexation from a variety of property owners that underlie
the W inmore proposal and the adjacent UNC property. The aspects of a voluntary annexation have a
few different steps. The aspects of the Town of Carrboro receiving and acting upon the annexation
would put the, property under the municipal limits of the Town of Carrboro. The zoning for that area
would stay the same until Carrboro changed the zoning. Based on last Friday's information, Carrboro
.....v... ........:....... ... ... _.._. ......._'...._.:i ...:::::u..::...:aa... ... .::.. .............. .....:aa. ........:..a.:� .l.�a:.�:i::.:.:•1.:: �.. i::Y...Lta4u..lau.:l:�..�:.a•:: �._:�.`_:: �....f.f:.......au...... ... _.�, l\u ..........»a_...
.ir
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 ORDINANCE REVIEW AND REGULAR MEETING
4 SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
5 6:30 p.m.
6
7 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Nicole Gooding -Ray, Chair, Jay Bryan (regular meeting only),
a Craufurd Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris (regular meeting only), Howard McAdams (regular
9 meeting only), Rachel Preston (Ordinance Review only), Renee Price (regular meeting only -
10 arrived 8:30), Hunter Schofield, Maria Tadd (regular meeting only)
11 STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Robert Davis, Tom King, Catherine
12 LaSpaluto and Thomas Tempia
13
14 AGENDA ITEM #1: ORDINANCE REVIEW — Telecommunications Ordinance
15 Amendments
16
17 Benedict made this presentation. There is a reference imbedded in the ordinance that talks about
:18 a future plan where the County can put together potential sites of a public or quasi -public nature
19 (i.e., fire stations, parks, voluntary agricultural districts, etc.) for towers. There would be a
20 different process for the towers located on public properties. An important part of the new
21 regulations for towers is that there will be annual application submittal. This would be one
22 meeting a year where all of the industry participants would be invited to bring their ideas of what
23 projects they may need in the coming year. This could encourage co- location. Another change is
24 that there will be a twice a year application submittal for Class A towers. Also, within the new
25 code, we are promoting using the power towers to put antennae attachments to them. This will
26 limit the amount of new towers going up. The height thresholds for Class A and Class B have
27 also been changed. If the provider comes in with four carriers on a 200 -foot pole or less, it will
28 stay Class B and only come to the Board of Adjustment for approval.
29
30 Preston asked if the ordinance was currently weighted so that public sites must be used first.
31 Benedict said no.
32
33 Price stated that there should be something that requires the public sites to be used first, if it is in
34 the same area as a proposed.tower.
35
36 Benedict spoke about the new fee structure for towers and said that it is $5,000 in escrow to
37 cover contracted service for technical review by the County. Any money left. over would be
38 rebated. There will still be a base amount for a Class A or Class B special use permit. There
39 would still not be 100% cost recovery of staff time with the Special Use Permit fees.
40
41 Schofield said that if you have full cost recovery for telecommunications, you would have to
42 have full cost recovery. for everybody.
43
44 Chair Gooding -Ray said that she thinks there is a way to differentiate and to single out
45 telecommunications.
46
102
a
t
1 Benedict continued his presentation. He said that staff approval for stealth towers located on
2 rooftops, etc. applies to towers 75 feet and below.
3
4 Davis made reference to page 12, number 7: "Antenna and/or microwave dishes may be located
5 on governmentally franchised utility poles...." and said that this does not apply to just County
6 property, it applies to any utility pole. This needs to be changed to say something like, "on poles
7 owned or controlled by the County or by a utility provider."
8
9 Katz made reference to item `d' under number 7 and asked about the antenna being 20 feet
to higher than the pole.
11
12 The staff does not know who controls the height of utility poles. This wording could be a
13 problem. Price suggested contacting the utility commission and suggesting that the antenna be
14 no more than 10 feet above the existing pole.
15
16 Davis said that one of the County Commissioners' goals in this is to reduce the number of
17 towers, and if it can work on a pole, it would be better off to be 20 feet above a pole than a new
18 tower 100 feet away.
19
20 Preston made reference to migratory birds and asked if any information had been presented that
21 would help modify the way the towers are structured to protect the birds. She asked if there was
22 anything we could do to say that we have tried to protect the wildlife.
23
24 Benedict said that they have reviewed the material that can be used for the Master
25 Telecommunications Plan and have identified some corridors where towers will not be placed on
26 public properties.
27
28 Chair Gooding -Ray asked about the effects of towers on people.
29
30 Benedict said that current research indicates the amount of radiation that comes from the towers
31 is 1 /1000 of the amount that would be harmful to humans.
32
33 Chair Gooding -Ray said that the only recommendation that she has heard from anyone is to
34 change, on page 12, number 7, item `d', to make an antenna 10 feet for existing and.new poles.
35
36 At this time, the Ordinance Review Committee meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning
37 Board meeting.
38
39 AGENDA ITEM #2: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
40
41 Chair Gooding -Ray called the meeting to order.
42
43 AGENDA ITEM #3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
44 September Calendar
45 Next meeting scheduled Wednesday, October 2, 2002
46
103
3
f 104
i AGENDA ITEM #4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
2
3 None
4
5 AGENDA ITEM #5: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 7,•2002
6 Work Session
7
8 Preston made an amendment on page 48. She said that what could not be heard was her hope
9 that we at least consider the nature -of some of the farms in the County, and especially the rural
to buffer. There are numerous properties with rich lineage that we need to think about trying to
11 preserve as many as we possibly can.
12•
13 Katz noted that he was at the meeting, but he was listed as absent.
14
is MOTION: Goodwin moved to approve the minutes of the work session. Seconded by
16 Preston.
17
18 VOTE; Unanimous
19
20 Regular Meeting
21
22 Mr. Speaker said that there was a suggestion of how to allow subdivision regulation criteria for
23 evaluating subdivisions to be utilized on a temporary basis. He said that this was not reflected in
24 the minutes.
25
26 Benedict said that this would be an interim measure. He said that what is being talked about is
2 7 having subdivisions with more than 20 lots be a special use process for reviewing applications.
28 There would be special use criteria that we would have to come up with through a code
29 • amendment process to identify the issues we wanted to examine.
30
31 MOTION: Katz moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting. 'Seconded by Lasris.
32
33 VOTE: Unanimous
34
35 AGENDA ITEM #6: PUBLIC CHARGE
36 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
37
38 AGENDA ITEM #7: CHAIR COMMENTS
39 Chair-Gooding-Ray said that she noticed that there were a lot of items in the minutes that people
40 had asked for. She asked if we had all of these items. Specifically, Benedict was supposed to get
41 something from ERCD about purchase of development rights. Benedict said that there would be
42 a report at a meeting in the future.
43
44 AGENDA ITEM #8: COMMITTEE /ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
45 Board of Adjustment — McAdams reported that there was no meeting due to a lack of a quorum.
46 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee — Tempia reported that there was a report from
.t
1 Lauren Elmore on sprawl at the.August meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
2 Committee. The.next meeting is September 23rd at 5:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services
3 Center. This is the final CPLUC meeting. A report will be coming to the Planning Board
4 hopefully in November.
5
6 Schofield said that it was discussed by the CPLUC that a number of the land use tools create too
7 much complexity. The land use changes need to be thoroughly reviewed and thought out. He is
8 worried that the citizens may hear about the changes for the first time in the paper or at a public
9 hearing, and not know enough about why the changes are being made.
10 Benedict said that all the growth management tools are going to be suggested. Also, at the
ii public hearing the strong and weak tools will be pointed out.
12
13 Chair Gooding -Ray said that she did not understand how the staff would explain the tools
14 enough for the public to comment on them.
15
16 Benedict said that the staff would be recommending a package of how to control lower density
17 development so it does not become sprawl.
18
19 Schofield said that the CPLUC is supposed to be the County's interface with the public, but it is
20 not the public. In the end, we are talking about three to five very significant land use changes.
21 He thinks the Planning Department means well for the County, but if there is no ownership by
22 County citizens, these proposals are not going to succeed. He feels that we have not built up
23 community trust in this process that is going to be necessary to implement the best ideas.
24
25 Benedict said that the reason that CPLUC was put together with the type of representation that it
26 has was to have someone from each of the different boards offer their perspectives. He said that
'27 the hardest thing is turning a vision into a regulation.
28
29 Katz said that he hopes we get a chance to focus on sustainability because this will create a lot of
30 support.
31 AGENDA ITEM #9: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
32
33 Item on Master Telecommunication Plan from BOCC September 3, 2002 meeting with 7
34 attachments
35
36 Chair Gooding -Ray said that we could not hear any new testimony from anyone. Any new
37 written information can be distributed.
38
39 Benedict spoke about changes that have occurred since the public hearing. He said that we are
4 o still allowing a Class B Special Use Permit under 200 feet if there are four users minimum.
41 Otherwise, 150 feet and less is Class B. The Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting is
42 the same, but what has.changed is that Class B permits can come in any time during the year as
43 long as they are consistent with what was discussed in the annual meeting. There are still twice a
44 year submittals for Class A permits at the quarterly public hearings. The third item is promotion
45 of co- location of antennas on existing buildings, transmission towers, utility poles, etc. The only
46 suggested change from the Ordinance Review is that the maximum height of antenna be 10 feet
105
`.:'.�.w.ia" ...'.::...a a...:...t.: .... ;..:u:d'.:aY:Yi::a.:.....n.: ...... ..... .. .. .. .. ........... ..... ... .. ...... .....ua. _....u............i.......1a ,...u..lu...i..a..a. u.u....iau . 1f.. 1. anau ...............u�..�....a..aL ..d.....__...
.1.1
1 instead of 20 feet above the utility pole. Regarding periodic inspections, there has been a
2 suggestion that instead of the flat *fee ($8,500 for Class B and $10,000 for Class A), that it will be
3 $7,500 for Class A to be escrowed in a fund to pay off the consultant costs. For Class B it will
4 be $6,000 for consultant escrow and $2,500 to review fees in both cases. Also regarding the
5 periodic inspections, there has been a modification that when a co- located tenant comes on after
6 the tower is placed, then the major inspection will occur 36 months after that time. There will
7 still be annual visual inspections.
8
9 The Master Telecommunication Plan will be a plan that could be adopted by the Board of County
10 Commissioners to set up a network of public and quasi- public sites that will be available to
11 locate telecommunication towers. This will have a community benefit because it will help in
12 using telecommunication services for public safety purposes. If the County Commissioners do
13 not approve the MTP, the rest bf the ordinance is still valid.
14
15 Regarding distance requirements between towers, there are some provisions that allow for
16 exceptions to those standards. For example, if the tower is full, the %z mile requirement would
17 not work. Regarding the balloon test, being able to see the balloon above the tree line is not a
.18 justification for denying the application. The balloon test is only for perspective.
19
20 At this point, Davis went over the handouts from the various telecommunication providers. The
21 first handout was from Spectra Site. It was suggested by Spectra Site that "unforeseen events" be
22 defined further in the ordinance.
23
24 Katz said that it seems that there may be justification for taking the tower down that has a single
25 user and putting up a tower that has more than one user. He said that, if that is the case, we may
26 have a tower that is 150 feet being replaced by a tower that is 200 feet. It was answered that a
z 7 higher tower would not be allowed. The tower could not deviate from the original Special Use
28 Permit approval.
29
30 Schofield said that it seems we could simplify the process of co- location on new towers and say
31 that in certain cases new towers can stay in house and be managed by staff. Benedict said that we
32 still have to go through the process for a special use permit.
33
34 McAdams said that once a Special Use Permit is issued, that is it. The only way to increase the
35 height of the tower is to get a new permit or modify the existing permit.
36
37 Schofield said that what he was saying was whether or not language should be included in the
38 new ordinance that at least encourages someone with a single tower with a single user at 150 feet
39 to co - locate three more users if 25 more feet were added.
40
41 Benedict said that we should proceed with the incentive package that we have at this time. He
42 asked for a vote on the-language for item 1.
43
44 Chair Gooding -Ray said that her preference would be to make a list of the changes and then vote
45 on the recommendations.
46
106
.... .u.:,..,. :..�.:.... ....,,•• ,:. .._...: ..:..,,:.:•.,..�..::•.,.,_a.�.: ,;.�.,....,..................,. .. ,— ...................._ ,....a.. ut..
..............aa......,..a... .. ... .. _. , ...�..,..._...... ,..:....._.�..... ,.,.. .,.., :.......,_..,....,...,..,.,,.u. m..,.. .u_...._.....
1 For item 1, the language was changed to say that the tower could be reconstructed, replaced, or
,2 modified, but not extended in an unforeseen event.
3
4 Item 2 was a suggestion to be more specific about equal or less visual impact. The Planning
5 Board discussed how this was very subjective. The board agreed to leave this to the staff and to
6 add "6.18" to "under this Section."
7
a Benedict mentioned that there was a comment that if there is a tower provider and there are four
9 user spots on there, how do we make sure that they will allow other users to enter the pole.
10 There needs to be language in the ordinance to say that other users should be able to enter the
11 pole and given regular market rent and not something unusual. We do not want a tower owner
12 being prohibitive of other users. A consultant could help to determine the market value.
13
14 Chair Gooding -Ray asked about Spectra Site's question #3 (related to shifting the timeframe for
15 inspections) and if we had addressed it. Benedict said yes. We are making the modification that
16 they suggested because we are not having inspections three years after initial installation but
17 three years from any co- located users.
1s
19 McAdams asked what justification we had to force the towers to be inspected every three years.
2o Benedict said that facilities of this nature are more peculiar than most and there are not any
21 guarantees of the useful life of the towers. The common practice in the U. S. is inspection of
22 these facilities.
23
24 Schofield made reference to the annual inspections and said that this is not a good use of time
25 because there is no evidence that he has seen that towers are in any way vulnerable to structure
26 deterioration as well as the fact that it is not a publicly accessed site. He feels that the annual
27 inspections are not necessary and burdensome to staff. He thinks there needs to be greater
28 scrutiny before creating a mandatory workload on the staff.
29
30 Price made reference to the public hearing where it was mentioned to inspect for loose bolts. She
31 has a concern that existing towers could also fall under the same rules of inspection.
32
33 The Board 'discussed whether to have inspections if there is not an adequate fall zone.
34
35 Katz said that if there is a tower on private property, the County should not get involved in
36 inspections.
37
38 Benedict said that the tower company could provide an inspection report from a reputable
39 inspector and the County would not have to do the annual inspection.
40
41 Chair Gooding -Ray asked if Spectra Site did annual inspections. Jason Catalini of Spectra Site
42 said that they had maintenance personnel.
43
44 Price said that it seems that it would be in the best interest of everybody to keep the towers in
45 good condition, otherwise the tower owners will go out of business.
46
107
7
108
1 Catalini said that structural inspections were good for much longer than three years.
2
3 The Board spoke about leaving the ordinance as it is as it relates to inspections unless there is
4 some evidence that the towers show some structural faults.
5
6 Davis said that an inspection has to be done when the tower is first built. He said that someone
7 with a professional license on the industry staff could do an inspection and it would not have to
e be done by the County.
9
10 Schofield suggested asking the industry to submit a report to the County on an annual basis that
11 would not require a major inspection, since the industry does inspections quarterly. If a report is
12 not submitted, this would be a red flag.
13
14 The following language was suggested for page 15 of the agenda packet, item `b': "At least once
15 every 12 months, a visual inspection from the ground shall be conducted by a properly trained
16 staff of a tower provider or consultant."
17
18 The Board then discussed whether to leave in item 2 -a on page 14 of the agenda abstract about
19 the major inspections every 36 months. The Board will vote on this at the end.
20
21 The Board decided to discuss the fees at the end.
22
23 The comments from American Tower were addressed above, except for the fees, which will be
24 addressed at the end.
25
26 The next handout was from Verizon. A representative from Verizon said that he withdraws
2 7 comment #1 based on what he has heard. Regarding comment #2, he said that it was very finite
28 as to what would be deemed an unforeseen circumstance. He would like this definition to be
29 broadened and not limited to the four categories.
30
31 McAdams said that item 2 on page 4 of American Tower's handout was not addressed.
32
33 Benedict read what this was referring to on page 16 of the agenda packet, item e. This item
34 speaks to existing towers.
35
36 Bill Howard of American Tower said that to require after the fact structurals when they have
37 never been the law in the County seems to impose additional costs and may impose some
38 practical problems. They are more than willing to cooperate with the staff, but they question the
39 requirement of information on existing towers.
40
41 Benedict said that the purpose was to have all the information about all the towers in the County
42 and their structural integrity so that if there is a tower somewhere that is 250 feet tall with one
43 user on it, we want to be able to know if the tower can handle more users. He said that out of the
44 49 towers on the map, we probably have good information on 10 -12 of the towers.
45
46 Chair Gooding -Ray asked Bill Howard if he had a structural analysis of the existing towers. Mr.
109
.t
1 Howard said that American Tower has nine existing towers'in Orange County. Some of the
2 towers were acquired from Alltel' Communications, so American Tower was not necessarily
3 involved in the construction of the towers. They would have a structural analysis of the towers
4 which they built. He said that the requirement to provide a capacity analysis of the towers would
5 set American Tower back approximately $36,000.
6
7 The Planning Board agreed to take out the word "current' ' from item 5e on page 16 of the agenda
8 packet.
9
10 At this point, the Board agreed to vote to continue the meeting past the automatic adjournment
11 time.
12
13 MOTION: Katz moved to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Seconded by Schofield.
14
15 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No,1 (Chair Gooding -Ray — she does not think the Board can get
16 through all the issues by 10:30 p.m.)
17
18 Davis pointed out that the normal adjournment time was 10:30 p.m. anyway.
19
20 Chair Gooding -Ray asked about tower separation. Davis provided some additional language on
21 page 19, item d, as follows: "Exceptions to this requirement shall only be allowed after thorough
22 analysis of the search area by the County's consultant indicating that coverage is not possible
23 with the existing towers at its four - carrier capacity. Also, an 80% vote would be required for this
24 specific finding."
25
26 Regarding grouping, Benedict said that it would be permitted if evidence is provided that the %2
27 mile requirement would not work.
28
29 ' The next issue was "visually intrusive." Benedict said that this term means to locate a tower on a
30 site to be the least visually intrusive, meaning that there would be less impact. This is on page
31 13, item b. The language was changed to say, "will be minimally visually intrusive."
32
33 On page 22, the language was changed to say that the light source would not be visible from
34 adjacent properties. Also, light spill should be contained.
35
36 The next set of comments was from Duke Communications. Most of these were repetitive.
37
38 Regarding fees, the Planning Board decided that the Board of County Commissioners should
39 determine the fee structure.
40
41 VOTE ON RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS
42 ORDINANCE:
43
44 Item #1: Definition of unforeseen events — addition of "reconstruction of modification allowed
45 in accordance with the existing SUP."
46
9 110
1 VOTE: Ayes, 7; No, 2 (Bryan and Price)
2
3 Item #8: Regarding unforeseen events, the staff would be allowed discretion on what would be
4 considered an unforeseen event.
5
6 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan)
7
8 Item #2: Add "6.18" to Section 6.18.2(d)(2) at the top of page 10 for clarification.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
.12 Item #3: Ensure that there is access to co- locations by adding language to let consultant handle
13 market rent situation.
14
15 VOTE: Ayes, 7; No, 2 (McAdams and Bryan) McAdams does not think we should handle the
16 fee structure.
17
18 Item #4: 6.18.4(f)(2)(b) — change in language — "a visual inspection from the ground shall be
19 conducted by a properly trained staff member of a tower provider or a consultant."
20
21 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan — he thinks we need someone from the County staff to protect the
22 public interest)
23
24 Item #5: Remove the inspection every 36 months, which is 6.18.4(f)(2)(a) on page 14.
25
26 MOTION: McAdams moved to eliminate inspections for towers that do not have anything in
27 the fall zone other than their equipment, and that inspections occur every five years. After co-
28 locations, there would also be inspections after the fifth year, and not the third year. Seconded by
29 Goodwin.
30
31 VOTE: Ayes, 2; No, 6 (Gooding -Ray, Bryan, Katz, Lasris, Price, Schofield, Tadd) - The
32 motion did not pass.
33
34 MOTION: Schofield moved that there be no inspections for tower facilities that do not have
35 any other structures other than their own within the fall zone, and for towers that do, there will be
36 inspections every three years. Seconded by McAdams.
37
38 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 3 (Bryan, Gooding -Ray, and Lasris — It is in the public's best interest
39 is to inspect all towers on a regular basis.)
40
41 Item #6: Remove "current" from (f)(5)(e) on page 16.
42
43 MOTION: McAdams moved to remove "current" as stated above. Seconded by Katz.
44
45 There was a friendly amendment to replace "current" with "initial ". McAdams accepted this.
46 Seconded by Lasris.
.... .. : 5.�...w .. .. w:i.- ......- • ..... .. ......_.....,..:.......: ......_........ _....... .... ,.- ...,....._.xx....�. .... .:........_ _..A..i...�. �Wh��: v�2�.t�.i... 41.�.`.':L�1
10 111
1
2 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan)
3
4 Item #7: Ensuring that existing and new tower standards work legally.
s
6 Schofield made reference to the previous vote and asked if it was for new and old towers.
7 Benedict said that it was only on new towers, except existing towers will have annual electrical
a inspections.
9
10 Schofield said that there was no language about requiring inspections for existing towers, which
11 he thinks is needed the most.
12
13 Price said that she had asked about this at the public hearing and the County Attorney said
14 something about it. Benedict said that having the word "current" brought us up to date with the
1s towers. The majority of this has to do with new tower installations.
16
17 Katz said that the tower providers actually do inspections of their own towers every quarter. He
18 said that if we could get the quarterly reports on even the older towers, then there would be a
19 good indication about whether the towers are maintaining structural integrity.
20
21 MOTION: Schofield moved that the inspection standards be uniform for new and existing
22 towers. Seconded by Tadd.
23
24 VOTE: Ayes, 4; (Goodwin, Lasris, Schofield and Tadd) No, 5(Gooding -Ray, Bryan,
25 McAdams, Katz, and Price)
26
27 The motion did not pass.
28
29 MOTION: McAdams moved to continue the meeting past the adjournment time. Seconded
30 by Katz.
31
32 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 4 (Goodwin, Bryan, McAdams, and Katz)
33
34 Item #9: 8.8.17a.1a.d on page 19 to add an exception to the %x mile separation between towers
35 requirement.
36
37 MOTION: McAdams moved to accept this language. Seconded by Katz.
38
39 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 3 (Gooding -Ray, Price, Bryan — he thinks you should only have to
40 stay one of the five and he is not satisfied that these are adequate to protect the public.)
41
42 Item #10: Davis' language on this same page as follows: "Exceptions to this requirement shall
43 only be allowed after thorough analysis of the search area by the County's consultant, indicating
44 that coverage is not possible with the existing tower at its foi r- carrier capacity with an 80%
45 approval vote of the board for this specific finding."
46
11
1 MOTION: Katz moved to accept this language. Seconded by Goodwin.
2
3 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan)
4
5 Item #11: 6.18.4(b) — "will be minimally visually intrusive" on page 13.
6
7 MOTION: Katz moved to accept this language. Seconded by Goodwin.
s
9 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan)
10
11 Item #12: 8.8.17a.2(d) regarding light spill and light source on page 22.
12
13 MOTION: Katz .moved to approve this language. Seconded by Schofield.
14
15 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (Bryan)
16
17 Item #13: Lightning rod issue on page 10. (Language placed in ordinance.)
is
19 MOTION: Katz moved to approve the language about lightning rods being considered part of
20 the overall height. Seconded by Goodwin.
21
22 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 4 (McAdams, Price, Bryan, Gooding -Ray)
23
24 Bryan said that the public's perspective about the meaning of this in terms of the lighting issue
25 and how the other sections of the ordinance handle lighting is unclear in terms of this particular
26 requirement. He said that this is a last minute suggestion.
27
28 The last issue is about the fees.
29
30 MOTION: Katz moved to recommend the fee ordinance as amended by staff. Seconded by
31 Good_ win.
32
33 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1' (McAdams — he thinks the fees are too high)
34
35 VOTE ON ENTIRE ORDINANCE:
36
37 MOTION: Katz moved to approve An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange
38 County. Seconded by Tadd.
39
40 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 4 (McAdams, Bryan, Lasris, and Price)
41
42 McAdams said that regarding the Master Telecommunication Plan, if there is a mass public
43 hearing with all the sites in it, everyone is not going to have the opportunity to state their reasons
44 long term to oppose or be in favor.
45
46 Schofield said that the Master Telecommunication Plan is a mistake and the public will not
112
12
t 113
1 adequately come out to discuss critically a condition that might not occur for 10 years down the
2 road. He said that the County was setting itself up for streamline adoption of some towers in
3 places where they are ill fit and without public notice.
4
s Bryan said that some consideration should be given to the idea of a broader standard for a public
6 body to hear some public input from people who are affected by it to turn a tower down. He also
7 agrees with McAdams.
s
9 Price agrees with the last three comments.
10
11 Lasris also agrees and he said that the public is left out of this because it is an ordinance for the
12 telecommunication companies and not the public.
13
14 Tadd thinks that we have been forced to approve this, because of a re -set time flame. She said it
1s is being reshed through without enough time to do a proper review.
16
17 Chair Gooding -Ray said that she agrees. The reason she voted for this because she does not want
18 the moratorium to end without having something in place. She thinks there needed to be several
19 more hours discussion on this issue.
20
21 Goodwin said that these towers do provide a public service and this has been neglected in the
22 conversation..
23
24 AGENDA ITEM #10: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
25 Board Appointments — no new applicants
26 News article from Barry Jacobs re: Limits on Groundwater use in Charleston
27 Thursday, November 7, 2002 meeting
28
29 AGENDA ITEM #11: ADJOURNMENT
30 With no further items to consider, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
31
32 Nicole Gooding -Ray, Chair
33
34 Becky Butler, Minutes Preparer
Q,4 ;? -a-;5 *
a. Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments 2� ' d 'z--
The Board considered closing the public hearing and considered amendments to the CL,
County's telecommunications tower ordinance.
Craig Benedict said that there have been many discussions with staff, consultants, and the
industry about how to update this ordinance. This is an overhaul to the existing ordinance. Some of the
height requirements have been changed. The Board of County Commissioners will see applications for
towers that are under 200 feet if the industry is not providing at least four users on the tower. Each year,
there will be an annual telecommunication projection meeting to find out where the industry wants to put
towers throughout the year. They are promoting co- location on existing electrical transmission lines.
The technical standards for review are higher. The ordinance is requiring periodic inspections and
engineering certification of new towers that are put in the County. There is a placeholder in the
ordinance for a Master Telecommunication Plan. It is not part of the ordinance tonight. There is also a
visual impact analysis. The fee schedule has been greatly revised. There is an escrow agreement
where fees will go in escrow for a consultant hired by the County in reviewing the applications. There
were some things added by the Planning Board (minimal light diffusion, fall zone, inspections). The
Planning Board approved the amendments with a 5 -4 vote. The Planning Board was concerned about
how the Master Telecommunication Plan would play into this.
The administration recommendation is to approve the amendments with one change. On
page five, recommendation number eight, the Planning Board asked that the industry just has to provide
the standards in place at the time the tower was originally installed for something that is less than six
years old. Administration's recommendation is that we stay with having the industry provide what the
current regulations are as far as the structural integrity of the tower. The administration recommends
approval of the amendments and of the fee schedule, which will be effective upon approval.
Commissioner Gordon said that she has a lot of questions. She would like to hear the public
speak and then put this on a consent agenda at a later time. She can get answers from the staff before
the next meeting.
Public Comment
Gary Pennington from Verizon Wireless spoke and encouraged the Board to pass the
amendments. He said that this ordinance has been debated at length. His only objection is the fee
structure.
The decision on this item was deferred to December 10, 2002.
b. Eno Ridge Subdivision (Formerly James Woods) Preliminary Plan
The Board considered a preliminary plan for the proposed Eno Ridge subdivision.
This project is located in Cheeks Township on the west side of Frazier Road between West
Lebanon Road and US 70. There are 32 lots with an average lot size of .975 acres.
Craig Benedict said that this project was originally known as the James Woods subdivision.
The applicant has worked with staff to amend the plan from its conventional design to add more open
space (31 %). The original plan only had 10% open space. The open space will be maintained by the
homeowners association. There is only one access point from Frazier Road at this time. The developer
has agreed to put in a center left turn lane into the project. The project will be serviced by individual well
and septic systems. Administration recommends approval of the subdivision as amended.
Commissioner Gordon verified that all of the neighbors were notified.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about number six on page four and the possibility of extending
public water services from Orange /Alamance. He asked if there has been any change. Craig Benedict
said that Orange /Alamance services some customers in this general area, but not a compact network of
users. Orange /Alamance has not developed a master plan to determine the ultimate boundaries. This
is outside of Orange County's transition area. There is a trend towards a lot of units in this area. If this
pattern continues, then urban services may be necessary in this area.
Geoff Gledhill said that the Orange /Alamance connection was part of the conventional plan
and is not part of this resolution of approval.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he was just asking about it because it had been discussed
before.