HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH-NS ORD-1996-012 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Telecommunication Towers ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 1996
Action Agenda
Item# C 4 (a) 1-5
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT- Telecommunication Towers
Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
Article 8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and Elevated
Water Storage Tanks(Class B Special Use) .
Article 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers(Special Use Permit requirements)
Article 6.3.1 Principal Uses
Article 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers(new)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X_Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes Mary Willis
Response to Comments Extension 2583
Proposed Amendment
Existing Provisions TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment of Zoning Ordinance
provisions relating to telecommunication towers
BACKGROUND: Concern with the increasing number of telecommunication towers has been
raised locally and nationwide by citizens, advisory boards and governing
boards in recent years. At the November 27, 1995 public hearing, the Orange
County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board received citizen
comments on a proposed amendment to Special Use Permit provisions relating
to telecommunication towers. Minutes from the public hearing are attached.
Speakers included five industry representatives and one Orange County
resident.
On January 18, 1996, the Ordinance Review Committee, as well as another
interested Planning Board member and a member of the Board of Adjustment,
96
met with the telecommunication providers who spoke at the public hearing.
The purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to gain a better
understanding of issues and technical concerns raised at the public hearing, and
to consider modifications to the proposal which would address those issues
while maintaining the purpose and intent of the proposed amendment.
Attached is a summary of some of the key areas of concern, and proposed
changes to the text initially presented for public hearing on November 27,
1995. Changes to the original proposal are indicated in cross-out/underline
form. Due to the extent of the changes proposed, a second advertised public
hearing is needed.
RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's
recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of
receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application
for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by either the public or the County
from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case, though, the public
hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's
Recommendation.
Zoning Of1`icer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the
affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text
amendment.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred
to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than August 5, 1996
s
_ 97
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes
J
1 that Ms. Baldwin would be required to participate equally in paving the road and the right-of-
2 way from St. Mary's Road to Reba and Roses. He also asked that the Reba and Roses
3 facilities be inspected to assure that they meet all State safety standards and Federal handicap
4 accessibility standards.
5
6 John Hartwell spoke in support of this Special Use Permit. He stated that he has
7 discussed this request with most of the neighbors and each one of them supports her request.
8 The neighborhood wants to see this approved. He did express concern about necessary
9 improvements to the road and the intersection at St. Mary's. He requested that the
10 Commissioners consider apportioning the road costs so that those who will benefit from the
11 improvements are required to help with the costs.
12
13 Laura Baldwin requested that the Commissioners take into account that the cost of road
14 improvements for subdivisions are factored into the cost of the homes. It is not possible for her
15 to pass on the cost of-improving this road to her customers. It would be an unreasonable and
16 devastating economic hardship on her. She also felt that only she bears the burden of traffic to
17 Reba and Roses.
18
19 'A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
20 ' refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
21 January 16, 1996.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
25 (a) Article 8.8.17 Telecommunications
26 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive comment on a
27 proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication
28 towers. The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County
29 as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted
30 in a number of other jurisdictions, the Planning staff recommends a proposed amendment. The
31 key aspects of this amendment are as follows: Telecommunication towers would be
32 established as a separate use and would require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by
33 the Board of Adjustment. The set back to non-residential property lines could be reduced to
34 50% of the height of the tower if the remaining distance were included within an easement on
35 adjoining property. A type C Land Use Buffer(40 feet in width) would need to be provided.
36 Specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower were
37 unsuccessful must be provided. Issues of tower color, lighting and view from historic site,
38 scenic road and major view corridor must be resolved. Obsolete towers must be removed.
39
40 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
41 None.
42
43 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
44 Planning Board member Bill Waddell asked about the request that engineers could
45 provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone.
y� 8
1
2 Mary Willis commented that the industry representatives are able to calculate the
3 collapse zone. It is possible to calculate where a tower would break if it were to fall. It is also
4 possible to calculate the area to which the debris would be contained.
5
6 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
.
7 ,��_ K a representative of the Carolina PCS Limited Partnership, made several
8 comments. This Partnership, which is comprised cfBe#South Corporation, Duke Power
9 Company, Carolina Power & Light and the 31 independent telephone companies in North
10 Carolina, was formed to bring to the citizens of North Carolina a new technology called
11 Personal Communication Services. This is a new technology, recently licensed by the FCC,
12 which provides a wider range of services and operates at a lower power than existing cellular
13 services. This is a digital rather than an analog technology which means that it can transmit
14 data as well as voice. This provides greater clarity and security. All of the towers that use this
15 new technology will be lower than 200 feet. The concerns that he has about this proposed
16 rewrite include the possibility that it will be too restrictive for this new technology to grow and
17 expand. He asked that incentives be implemented to encourage all companies to build their
18 systems without constructing new towers. Other possible places to locate using "stealth
19 technology" are bell towers and church steeples, water towers, and tall buildings. He
20 suggested that the incentives would be the cost savings as well as the possibility that the Board
21 of Commissioners could exempt "stealth technology" locations from the Use Permit process and
22 allow for staff approval. He also commented on the suggested standard for"unreasonable
23 interference with the view" from historic sites, scenic roads or major view corridor. He felt that it
24 would be impossible to accurately determine this standard because of its subjectivity. if the
25 intent is to assure that the tower is in harmony with the area of location, that standard already
26 exists in the ordinance.
27
28 anager of Forsythe Development f erloperation of
29 Cri reiterate Mr. Cain's comments. He disagreed with the requirement that industry
30 notify other companies about intention to erect a tower. The construction of towers which
31 support co-location of towers is already required. County staff is aware of all activity and is the
32 . _._logical entity to keep tract of new requests for towers and/or tower use and matching those
33 requests with already erected towers with available space. He also felt that requiring this type
34 of notification unfairly handicaps current tower owners both competitively and from a capital
35 investment standpoint. Another area in which he expressed concern was the "fall zone"
36 requirement. The industry does not feel that"fall zones" are necessary. There are 2000 towers
37 across the United States and there has never been a tower failure. He requested that these
38 towers not be compared with the T.V. towers which are in excess of 1000 feet. He also
39 commented that the 100 foot setback is not necessary or reasonable.
40
41 rsonaI Communications, expressed agreement with
42 previous He addreimeTffe issue of"stealth technology" which refers to antennas
43 that do not look like antennas. He recommended that a task force be created to look at this
44 technology to assure that they meet the intended nature and intent of the technology. When
45 they are approved as "stealth technology" the industry could be provided relief from subdivision
99
1 setback regulations and other Special Use Request Ordinance. He indicated that he would
2 work with staff to present examples of how the Special Use Request process and subdivision
3 process work together to create burdens on their industry.
4
5 914M North Carolina General counsel ft, Celfut*r, expressed several
6 concerns. He mentioned that the requirement to share tower space indicates that a letter needs
7 to be sent to all owners of towers within a one mile radius. This raises the concern for industry
8 staff that they could be requested to locate a mile from their original requested site. The site
9 locations are not flexible and would not provide the necessary coverage if they were required to
10 locate at another location. There is a real financial motivation to locate on existing towers
11 where that is possible. The additional paperwork will not increase that motivation. He also felt
12 that requiring that applicants for new towers send notification to a preexisting list is not workable
13 for industry staff. The Special Use Permit process already requires co-location wherever
14 possible. This adds additional paperwork and questions about who gets on the list. He asked
15 for clarification that the buffer is to be around the tower compound rather than the entire
16 perimeter of the tract. Also, that the setback is from the base of the tower to the adjacent
17 property line rather than the base of the tower to the lease line.
18
19 Mary Willis indicated that the buffer is to be around the tower compound but that the set
20 back is from the base of the tower to the lease line.
21
22 Mr. Eatman asked that the setback requirement be reconsidered so that it deals with
23 adjoining property owners and adjoining property lines rather than simply.increasing the size of
24 the parcel that needs to be leased.
25
26
agreed with the previous comments. He requested
27 that a open discussion be held wi try and County staff, the Planning Board, citizens , and
28 County Commissioners to facilitate developing standards.
29
30 Commissioner Willhoit asked if it was true that land in an easement area could not be
31 cultivated. He mentioned that many of the issues to be addressed in the application do not
32 relate to telecommunications, but to the tower itself. He asked that the Planning Board address
33 the issue of whether the Special Use Permit ought to apply to a tower.
34
35 Mary Willis replied that the subdivision regulations addressed that issue. Land leased for
36 this particular purpose is considered under subdivision regulations and must receive approval in
37 order to create a lot for the principal use as opposed to just having an easement. It would not
38 specifically prohibit cultivation of that land.
39
40 Commissioner Gordon asked if the buffer was related to the lease line because other
41 nearby lots could have homes on them. She also asked for further clarification regarding the
42 objection to mailing notification to a specified list.
43
lUv
1 Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield
2 the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a
3 two acre area. It is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower.
4
5 Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list
6 would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these
7 companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of
8 competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and
.9 competitive.
10
11 John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this
12 business. ATT will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They do
13 not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor.
14
15 Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want
16 notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed.
17
18 Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable
19 basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is
20 to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New.users would be
21 added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to
22 co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as
23 comprehensive list as possible.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to
26 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
27 January 16, 1996.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations
31 This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a
32 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding
33 screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The
34 Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board
35 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January
36 16, 1996.
37
38 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
39 Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be assured that the accessory buildings would
40 not be visible to adjacent roads and property.
41
42 Mary Wiles stated that by reviewing the Site Plan and the landscape on the property a
43 determination would be made. It would not apply in cases where the proposal was to plant
44 vegetation that would eventually grow up to be an adequate shield. In this particular case, the
45 shield would have to be in-place and already existing within a wooded area.
' 101
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers
ARTICLE 4.3 Permitted Use Table
ARTICLE 6.3.1 Principal Uses
ARTICLE 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth
Telecommunication Towers(NEW)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
BACKGROUND:
Telecommunications towers are allowed in all residential zoning districts and most non-
residential zoning districts upon approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of
Adjustment. As technology has advanced in recent years, there has been increasing
concern with the growing number of towers and their visual impact.
In response to concerns of the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment and individual
citizens, the Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance text amendment on
October 5, 1994 to require applicants to first attempt to lease antenna space on an
existing tower, and to agree to lease space to other potential users on the future if a new
tower is approved.. The intent of the amendment was to minimize the number of new
towers by providing for more than one user. Article 8.8.17 of the Zoning Ordinance,
containing the existing Special Use Permit requirements for communications towers, is
attached.
On November 27, 1995, another amendment was proposed which provided more
specific and detailed requirements. Minutes of the public hearing are attached. Below
are revisions to the original proposal, which attempt to address issues raised by
citizens and industry representatives, and a summary of the key changes.
1 to z
Response to November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments (see attached minutes)
1. Minimizing the Number of New Towers
A major concern of industry representatives was related to the proposed means
by which we would assure that adequate provision had been made to minimize
the number of new towers by sharing space on existing or new towers.
Encoura,gina Use Of Existing Towers
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that efforts to locate on an existing tower
be documented. There are no standards, however, by which to evaluate the
documentation provided.
Proposed Documentation Process: The amendment presented for
public hearing in November, 1995 included a requirement that the
applicant send letters to all tower owners within one mile of the
proposed site requesting information such as availability of lease space,
and tower height and strength. Also required was a copy of responses
received. One concern raised was that the applicant must rely on the
tower owner's response to requests for information, and delays could
result if the tower owner did not prepare the needed information in a
timely manner. The proposed wording was thought to place an implicit
burden of responsibility on the owners of existing towers to provide
detailed engineering and other information, upon the demand of
potential applicants, which could be time-consuming and costly.
The proposed revision continues to require submittal of information
concerning availability of space to lease, and tower height and strength
as was proposed in the initial draft. However, specific requirements as
to how communication between the applicant and the tower owner is to
occur are eliminated. The applicant must contact tower owners in order
to obtain the needed information, however, the proposed revision
focuses on the outcome of that contact,rather than the process.
Location of Towers Considered for Possible Co-location: Typically,
the range within which a new tower can perform its function within the
communications network is on the order of 1/4 mile from the proposed
site. There is some variability, however, depending on factors such as
the tower height and topography.
The area within which towers must be identified and evaluated is
proposed to be at least 1 mile for towers 200 feet or taller(as originally
proposed) and one-half mile for towers shorter than 200 feet. In
addition, the applicant must provide an engineer's certification
indicating the widest range from the proposed site within which the
equipment could perform.
103
All towers within the applicable mile or one-half mile radius must be
identified. However, a thorough and detailed explanation as to why co-
location efforts were not successful is required only for the towers
located within the functional range.
Sharing Space on New Towers
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that the applicant submit a statement
indicating that that the proposed tower can support at least one additional use
and that the applicant is willing to lease space on the tower to another user at a
reasonable rate.
The proposal presented at public hearing required that that letters be sent to all
potential users, offering to share space on the tower and requesting a response.
Potential users would have an opportunity to respond and express their interest in
leasing space.
Questions were raised regarding who would be notified, what to do in the case of
no responses, or many responses, and the potential for unfair ,competitive
advantage for those who do not have a tower network already in place. Also
questioned was the need for this notification requirement. It was thought that
these provisions were duplicative, since all applicants would be required to
explore and document the possibilities of using an existing tower prior to
submitting an application.
The purpose of the provisions discussed above is to assure that existing towers
will be utilized to the greatest possible extent before new towers are
constructed. The Planning Staff agrees that the notification requirements for the
purpose of offering to.lease space is duplicative, and finds that the existing
provisions, which require that the tower be designed to support an additional
user, and that the Special Use Permit include a statement indicating the
applicant's willingness to lease space, are sufficient.
2. Subdivision Requirement
A lot to be used as a tower site which is created through the subdivision
process must generally be 1 or 2 acres in size, depending on the zoning district,
must be accessed by a right-of-way or easement at least 50 feet in width, and
must meet other requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations in much the same manner as a lot proposed for residential use. One
exception is that a Notice of Restricted Development Potential may be recorded
in lieu of having a soils analysis performed by Environmental Health, since
tower sites are unmanned and no septic disposal facilities are needed.
Concern with the requirement that separate lots be created for tower sites has
been expressed. In most cases, the property to be used for the tower is leased,
104
and future residential use is not anticipated. Land area requirements, right-of-
way width and road improvements may be more than is needed for an
unmanned facility.
In order to comply with State enabling legislation, property which is either
purchased or leased on a long-term-basis must be subdivided in order to create
it as a separate building lot. Property leased on a short-term basis, such a year-
to-year, is not required to be subdivided.
No ordinance revisions pertaining to this issue are needed. This concern can be
addressed by informing applicants of the option to eliminate the subdivision
requirement by for tower sites by obtaining a year-to-year lease rather than a
long-term lease.
3. Stealth Application
In some cases, communications equipment can be located on an existing or
proposed structure which either serves another purpose altogether (such as a
tall building or water tower) or is disguised to look like it serves another
purpose (such as a tower in a rural area built to look like a silo). Other
examples of stealth applications may include church steeples, clock towers,
and observation towers. Permits are not required to place equipment on an
existing structure. However, permit approval is generally required for the
initial construction of most structures which would be of a sufficient height and
strength to support the equipment.
The Planning Staff recommends that stealth applications be encouraged
because of the reduced visual impact. It is proposed that new towers up to 160
feet in height which are sufficiently disguise be approved administratively by
the Planning Staff if the following criteria are met:
• The primary purpose of the structure is, or visually appears to be, for
something other than the support of telecommunications equipment,
and the apparent purpose is customarily considered accessory to a use
which is allowed in the zoning district.
• The structure and its use comply with the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance; and
• For existing structures, the equipment does not extend more than 20
feet above the structure, or 10% of the height of the structure,
whichever is greater,provided that height and setback limitations of the
Zoning Ordinance are met.
If the structure is not sufficiently disguised or does not meet applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, then a Class A or Class B Special Use
Permit would be required, depending on the height.
4. Other Uses on Lot
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that there be no more than one principal
use on a parcel. Revisions to the proposal presented for public hearing in
November, 1995 include revision to Article 6.3.1, specifying that a
telecommunication tower may be allowed as a second principal use on a parcel.
A tower located on property used also for some other purpose would require
approval of a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit(unless it was found to be
a sufficiently-disguised stealth application). The Special Use Permit would
apply to the entire parcel, including any other uses. However,the standards of
evaluation required for permit approval would apply only to the tower itself.
This change would allow towers to be located in conjunction with a shopping
center, church, or other principal use without creating a separate subdivision
lot(provided that-the property is subject to a short-term lease only), and would
facilitate the use of stealth applications.
5. Setbacks
For towers requiring approval of a Special Use Permit, minimum setbacks
adjacent to residential zoning districts are proposed to equal the height of the
tower, but could be reduced by up to 50% with approval of the adjoining
property owners, provided that the standard minimum setback requirement of
the zoning district is met.
Adjacent to non-residential uses or non-residential zoning districts, the setback
must be the greater of 20% of the tower height or the minimum standard
setback of the zoning district. The lesser setbacks adjacent to non-residential
districts or uses could address potential setback problems on small commercial
lots, without impacting existing residences.
Towers or structures which qualify as stealth applications and are not subject to
approval of a Special Use Permit must meet setback provisions of Article
6.2.1(a) which requires one additional foot for front and side setbacks, in .
addition to the standard setback specified in Article 5.1, for each two feet of
height above the maximum height specified for the zoning district. For
example, a 160' stealth tower in the R-1 zoning district (25' height limit, 40'
front setback, 20' side setback) would be subject to a front setback of 108 feet
and aside setback of 88 feet.
106 .
6. Unreasonable Interference with View.
The proposed amendment presented for public hearing in November 1995
included a standard that "the tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere
with the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor.
Questions were raised regarding how "unreasonable interference" would be
defined. This provision has been eliminated from the draft due to the lack of a
specific standard to define "unreasonable". The intent of the provision would
be met in making the general Special Use Permit findings, particularly the
findings that the use maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and
that the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area in which it
is to be located and is in compliance with zoning regulations and the Land Use
Plan.
7. Minimum Tower Height
It is expected that the height of new towers will decrease after construction of
the network of towers that will provide the basic coverage needed for the
system. The location of additional towers is based on demand, and as towers
are closer together, the height needed is not as great. Based on a review of
requirement of other jurisdictions, both local and national, the Planning Staff
recommends that towers less than 75 feet in height be permitted by right.
8. Other Types of Towers
Commissioner Willhoit questioned applicability to towers other than those
used for telecommunication purposes, such as those used for air quality
monitoring.
The staff recommends that telecommunication towers continue to be treated as
a specific use because each tower is constructed in the context of a larger
network, and it can be anticipated that requests for additional towers in the
network will continue. The proposed ordinance provisions address issues
which are unique to a telecommunications network.
Other tower-like structures or facilities are now subject to an additional setback
requirement of one foot for every two feet of height above the height limit
specified for the zoning district. Also, the tower must be associated with a
use that is permitted in the zoning district. Although there are occasional tower
structures proposed for purposes other than telecommunication, these requests
are infrequent, and the Staff has identified no trend which would indicate plans
to develop a coordinated network for some other purpose in the future. The
Planning Staff recommends that other tower structures continue to meet the
applicable setback requirements. If the County wishes to apply different or
additional standards or review procedures to other types of towers, a separate
ordinance amendment is recommended.
lU
9. Notification Requirements
The issue of notification requirements was raised by an Orange County citizen,
who expressed concern with amendments which would limit notification of
citizens.
All property owners within 500 feet of a site are notified by mail of any
rezoning, Special Use Permit, or other action requiring a public hearing. In
addition, the property is posted with a sign and a newspaper notice is run twice
prior to the public hearing. The Ordinance Review Committee recommended
that property owners within 1000 feet be notified of Special Use Permit
hearings for telecommunication towers. One Committee member
recommended that the notification radius be extended further, to a distance of
at least 1500 feet.
Notification would not be required in cases where stealth applications were
used to the extent that the project could receive administrative rather than
Special Use Permit approval. Administrative approval in those cases is
proposed in response to citizen concerns regarding the visual impact of towers,
is intended as an incentive to encourage the use of effective stealth
applications.
8.8.17dg3d Tr1n :ff:1 . T-FROSMi'"ag a D
giving
lvted L V
Water
torag Tan la a B�.pe ial 1
8.8.17.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing site and size of all existing and proposed
structures, 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.
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.
obtain-spaee-en the eadstiag tewen A loge indieating this
shall be subn4fted%ith a ♦1
e ,l.i net «te..F a .:th ph «t., it on
����si.aaa�
SYlible'Vt is.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or
otherwise, for the security of the site, including the provision
of a gate at the access entrance of access roads leading to
such facilities.
b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use.
C) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of
adjacent property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding
or other menaces to public health and safety.
11 �
The afA may
,. _
r �
8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (NEW) 111
NOTE-Cross-out/Underline indicates revision of the original amendment
presented for public hearing in November 1995. The existing ordinance
provisions are included as a separate attachment.
8.8.17a.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing site and size of all existing structures within
500 feet of the site, existing and proposed topography at a contour
interval of five feet and any officially designated floodways and
floodplains,or the presence of alluvial soils.
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.
d) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for
locating the proposed facilities on an existing tower. Such evidence
shall consist of:
1) A listing of all towers within a 1/2-mile (for towers shorter
than 200 feet) or 1 mile (for towers 200 feet or taller) radius
of the R=sed tower site.
2) Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search ranee
within which the tower equipment can function as intended.
The following information shall be provided for all existing
towers within the search range:
Cepies of letleFs sent
(a) Tower height;
(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
112, could be structurally strengthened or whether the
antennas transmitters and related equipment could be
protected from electromagnetic interference, and
generally describe the means and projected cost of
shared use of the existing tower; and
3. A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be
located on any of the existing towers in the search range.
e\ >r Vi e"Ge +het the applie.e,„t is ..,;11i fig +e lease « tower- to
-i �.,..........� 4.... ul� ,.rral�.�l,. 1J ..11
other--teleee ta}ieafiexs-} -evider-s, provided the use weUld flet
ante':- .,,;+1.the.,Y pl;earAs use, a ll reasonable basis.
i Cepies of--a Hetiee--sent by eeFtified mail to
teleeeaffatmieatiea tewe>- users(lis4 e;ided by- 4he
Awming-Depa ent) il"•itifig-petential eeffwaiH4ra6ea
tee• asM te fly-€er-spaee-OR the PEOPOSed tOIAW. The
etiee_ehen i elu e the s r°:fleeBas of th t prepesed tower-,
rimmed he i&, ..d1 Phone mb .. to 1 + the Of
+r'' Y •c . and
the
.Bleat:°ff eF the 'J
F ee;h:l;ty
J, and the a Yp ee..t's T" p°rnc +Zv
eaeh request to-she teweFspaee. Faetefs te be semider-ed
when a ,°leer:«e. the feasibility eF h a 1 d but net
-1 ted-te, the-€ellew4ag—s# w *-eaparity, Fuie
€Fequewy iaterfer-eaee,-geed--son se--yea
ex�ents�--feshanieal-or- eleetFieel-lneempa"i4 ies;
-fib l:ty ability to lever° equipmeat @a appFewd a
uabu& tewer-s, ees4 (if fees-md Bests-fe h ' '
pr-ee!We shwed use,and ether.app bl ede r-equ4eme
«
rr
tower lessee
' d J F4teJ the eer . F s1 wed gien h
. Dp th brief
rr pr-evide the ..6 e Y mt... «
do@ to stmetuW lkviitatieas, the-e* _ shall iaeIede
s4vetuml-lei=emits aeeess&-y to suppeft the fejee*
Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower,
such as lighting and coloring.
11 ;
f. Draft bond or other security which will tuamntee the removal of the
tower in the event that it is abandoned or un used for a period of 12
P- A listing of all propea owners within 1000 feet of the parcel shall
be provided Each 12rroperty owner shall be notified of the public
hearing in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 ( as B Special Use
Permit) or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of t is
Ordinance.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
a) The wl-Amum let size sheAl be as rvqt4ed by the applie"
zoning dis#iet-
b) Adjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks
from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be
equal to the height of the tower. The setback may be reduced
to no less than one-half of the tower height if easements for
the remaining setback distance are granted by adjoining
property owners.
c) Adjacent to non-residential-uses or non-residential zoning
districts,minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the
property boundary shall be eqtW te 50-OK
teNew setback reduced to t s �tw 20,1 �
zv�xv-ac�.r-�.ricar-tv�avr
. thereater of
20%of the tower height,or the minimum required setback.
d) A Type C Landscape Buffer shall be provided between the
tower and adjoining property. Existing vegetation may be
removed only to the extent necessary.to accommodate the
tower, equipment buildings, and support structures such as
guy wires.
100,04 of the tewer-height, @*eept these
f) The site plan shall indicate a location for at least one
equipment building in addition to that proposed for use by
the applicant.
g) Security fencing is provided around the tower base or around
the perimeter of the site.
h) 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.
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.
i) The communications tower is structurally designed to
support at least one additional user, and the Special Use
Permit includes a statement that owner of the tower is willing
to permit other user(s) to attach communication facilities
which do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower,
provided that such other users agree to negotiate a reasonable
compensation to the owner from such liability as may result
from such attachment.
j) The color of the tower is of light tone, except to the extent
required by law,so as to minimize its visual impact.
k) The towers will not be artificially lighted unless required by
the FAA, FCC or other federal or state agency. Where=h
agencies allow a choice between painting the tower or
installing strobe lighting- painting shall be the preferred
choice.
1}-- o- nd-ariterx3aAr�riet-awe aseffably ifitel:fefe VA
read,
view eer•-icier.
m) 'All abandoned communication towers
shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of use.
115
,Mh t�As-req eat-A bond or other security gu?ranteeing
the removal of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or
un1CPd for a 1e*i^d of 12 months shall be posted. A cost
estimate shall be vrovided by a clified contractor. The
amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the estimate
6.3.1 Principal Uses
Thch shall be no more dion 0 nom 1,use g let 4t a eptie r
Y _'Y �� „a �' r
Y single pFiaeipeA
cac leeated on
There shall be no more than one p n icip la use on n zy onin_g lot except where:
a) I&nnitted as wart of a Planned Development:or
b) the parcel is less than 2 acres in size and non-residential multiple uses are
proposed within a single principal structure:or
C) One of the uses is an nn*nannPrl telecommunication tower subject to a year-
to-year or other short-term lease.
518 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers MMO
New telecommun. tion towers = to 160 feet in-height which are sufficiently
disa i sed so as to minimize visual i=act may he 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 sufficiently disguised if: the primary_
12=9se of the structure is, or visually apl& to be something other than the
m=rt of telecom_mu_nications equipment: the apparent 12u=se is customarily
considered as accessory to a use which is allowed in the zoning district' and the
structure and its use comply with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
The placement of telecommunication equipment on existing stnlcb=s may be
approved a mi istratively=provided that the equipment does not extend more than
20 feet above the stmcturz, or 10% of the height of the structure- whichever is
gmater. and height and setback limitat onS of the Zoning Ordinance are met
11b ❑ a
❑ ❑
w w
� N
• N i m + Y N
H m
H m � a)
w a •
H W U
W
a)
no. fa
No ��.: i Y + m • Y s o co
CO
--T
co
0 ca
fa ul ID
U U
U U xx
cn
m u u
W
4-3� ❑ m m C
W x, t °k Sax:
❑ F a
F ti to
� .1 .e,,q: ..:
W m K.,
n n n
a m « m + « a
D7
a m + m + « a
: ., F•1 f0
N
>
.a.,...'
O f�-i
0-
a m d
C CO
m + a m m � a)
+> >
m « m « « « m a ro � P ca
C Fa
a O m m m m 7 43
•.�i '+ �n.m .� E U)
° a
b n r N U rCI
b o o b
m w r CO
v Y a � o ro W v a m .�v •" u
.i G O W 7 ❑ y� O N
W m O Ol `s.!'%`` U N + m 0 m " m•H CE M H u m C m G ya m
{vv.
m 7 E O 1
0 , o .6
o, y
n
m .00 V >w ami d
4) C U N U U 70. U N q N O w �tl L Ero
v1 a H N N ur m F D C7 O 3 U) U
�qea
a ��1Jf>�;�• a a a a s a a a a a
- 11'7
standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require
the approval of the Board of Adjustment. In determining whether a
change in the operation of the facility has occurred, the Zoning Officer
shall be guided by the procedures and criteria contained in Article 8.7
and Article 8.8.16.2.
8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and Elevated
Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use
8.8.17.1 Additional Information
Amended In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
10-5-94 following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing siting and size of all existing and proposed
structures, 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.
C) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, exitting
and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials.
d) If an existing communications tower is located in the general vicinity of
the proposed communications tower, applicant shall attempt to obtain
space on the existing tower. A letter indicating this attempt shall be
submitted with the application materials.
e) A statement indicating the applicant is willing to lease space on its
communications tower to other communications providers whose use
would not interfere with applicant's use on a commercially reasonable
basis.
f) A statement from the applicant indicating the communications tower is
of sufficient size and structure to support the proposed use, plus one
additional use which would not interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
Amended The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application
10-5-94 for approval:
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or otherwise,
for the security of the site, including the provision of a gate at the
access entrance of access roads leading to such facilities.
b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use.
8-20
c) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of adjacent
property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces
to public health and safety.
d) Adequate provision has been made to obtain space on an existing
communications tower in the general vicinity.
e) If a communications tower is proposed a statement is to be included
with the Special Use Permit Application indicating the applicant will
lease space on its tower on a commercially reasonable basis provided
the additional use would not interfere with the applicant's use. The
applicant may have the option of leasing space within an equipment
storage area or building or providing separate facilities for this purpose.
f) Adequate provision has been made for the communications tower to
support the proposed use, plus one additional use which would not
interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.18 Buildings for Temporary Use (Class B Special Use)
8.8.18.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
1 a) Site Plan showing all existing and proposed structures on the site,
existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet,
existing and proposed landscaping, parldng areas, access points, any
officially designated flood plains, and other site details.
b) A description of the exterior materials, color and construction details.
C) Statement of proposed use and length of time building will be in use.
8.8.18.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application
for this use:
a) The temporary building shall not be used for residential purposes.
b) The requirements of Articles 4, 5, 8 and 9 of this ordinance have been
met.
C) The temporary building shall not be used by operations offering drive-
in services.
d) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified
and for the use specified.
8-21
5 91
NEAL TAPP said that this property is in the woods and this use would cause the property to
remain wooded and the tower would not be seen from the road.
EVE OLIVE, President of the Emerson Waldorf School, which is close to this area, said that if
there is going to be a telecommunications tower on this property, she is concerned about the health impact
on the children. She stated that there has been a lot of evidence concerning the high incidence of leukemia
in children living near power lines. She asked that this health impact be stated in the Zoning Ordinance and
that the regulations limit the proximity of radio towers to areas where there are large numbers of younger
children.
County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that the County Commissioners have a
responsibility to look at all the possible uses in making their decision on a rezoning. The Board would be
endorsing these uses if they approve the rezoning request.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to refer
this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners
no sooner than August 5, 1996.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(b) Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion
(HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b)
4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(a) Telecommunication Towers
1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
2) Article 8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and
Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use)
3) Article 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (Special Use Permit requirements)
4) Article 6.3.1 Principal Uses
5) Article 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers
(new)
Planner Mary Willis presented the information for this item. She summarized her response to
the concerns heard at the November 27, 1995 public hearing. She outlined the changes in this proposal
which are listed in the agenda abstract.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis said that all the changes with
the exception of the notice to citizens are less stringent. She clarified some of the new language used in the
proposed changes.
In answer to a question from Chair Carey about a study showing adverse health impacts from
communication towers, Mary Willis said that everything she has read indicates that there is no identifiable
health risk associated with communication towers. She will provide documentation to the County
Commissioners.
County Attorney Geof Gledhill stated that he feels that the 1995 Cable Communications Act
takes the County Commissioners out of the business of making a decision based on safety issues concerning
communication towers. Congress made the decision that they were safe. He will provide information to the
Board on this issue.
Karen Barrows asked about the minimum setback and Mary Willis said that the full setback of
100° will be required. However, if the adjacent property owner did not object to a lesser setback, that could
be approved. This provides for flexibility.
Renee Price noted that there have been studies about health impacts from communication
towers and that she is also concerned about this issue.
S.A.M. Brooks asked about the setbacks for the adjoining property owners and noted that it
would be difficult to know the impact on adjoining property until after the tower is built. Mary Willis indicated
that they do have photographs which help in determining what impact towers of varying heights would have
on adjoining property.
In answer to a question from Margaret Brown, Mary Willis said that the 500 foot notice is from
the boundaries of the property on which the tower would be located.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication
towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations.
ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company,
which used to be Sprint Cellular, made reference to several sections and made comments.
(1) 8.8.17a.1 requires "a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200
feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 1/4 mile. He has no problems with providing
any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information on towers
outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the number of
towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range.
(2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all existing
towers in the search range and 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." He
said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want it only if it is relevant.
For example, if a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a commercially reasonable rate,
it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are fairly detailed and expensive
engineer studies.
(3) 6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance - Principal Uses -to his knowledge, this is the only
County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision
Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation.
With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no
less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property
owners. An easement is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased.
BARRY JACOBS, Caretaker of Moorefields in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their
efforts in regulating these towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal
with a request on one of their water tanks, which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the
requirements for"Unreasonable Interference with View". He suggested that the wording "significant
adverse impact" be used instead of"Unreasonable". He suggested that under the "Special Use Permit
Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property may
not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration under a
Special Use Permit. The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is maintained is
subjective. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help visualize how high the
tower would be and what it may impact from that height. With reference to health effects, they found that
there are no proven health risk from communication towers.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer
this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners
no sooner than August 5, 1996.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Willhoit asked that the communication companies be requested to provide
information on the health impact of communication towers - -what the standards are, energy level, and if
they are directional or focused and the power level compared to the standard.
Mr. Benshoff added that what the Communications Act of 1996 does is establish a safety
standard. It does not take the County out of the business of regulating it. It says that the American National
Standards Institute, the Institute that sets safety guidelines for everything from towers to bicycle helmets, has
established a safety standard where all this evidence we have been referring to indicates it is safe. What the
Telecommunications Act says is that the County must look at this standard and use that standard and so long
as the facility meets that standard, that it is the standard applicable for local governments.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to
June 26, 1996 at a meeting that begins at 7:30p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The items listed below will be
heard at that time.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(b) Article 6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations
(c) Article 8.8.24 Special Uses- Use of Historic Structures
(d) Economic Development District Design Manual
(HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b)
5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
(a) Section III-C-4 action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivisions)
(b) Section III-D-3(c) action Subsequent to Approval (major subdivisions)
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to
June 26, 1996 to begin at 7:30 p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The remaining items will be heard at that time.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk