HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH-NS ORD-1996-014 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Article 8.8.24 - Historic Structures-Non Residential Reuse/Mixed Use lit
V
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:
Action Agenda
Item#L )
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Resider ial Reuse/Mixed Use (Class A Special Use)
Article 8.8.24 Historic Stru
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No
DEPARTMENT: Planning Yes�_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED:
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
Proposed Amendment
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to include historic propert_
as well as structures in the consideration of Special Use Permits for the non-
residential use of historic structures.
BACKGROUND: The non-residential use of historic structures is permitted in the AR, RI and RB
zones provided a Class A Special Use Permit is obtained from the Orange Count3
Board of Commissioners. Standards that must be complied with are specified in
Article 8.8.24 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment would clarify that the historic nature of the property as
well as the structure may be considered in the Special Use Permit approval
process.
RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the public hearing is the time
scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation regarding
Proposed amendments to the ordinance.
lc}�
,y `9
Zgning Qfflcer R-commendation
Provided that the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners find in the
affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text
amendment to Article 8.8.24 of the Zoning Ordinance.
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
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REFERENCE: ZONING ORDINANCE -ARTICLE 8.8.24
Historic Structures -Non Residential Reuse/Mixed Use (Class A
Special Use)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
X BOCC Public
Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
Purpose of Amendment: To include historic property as well as structures in the
consideration of Special Use Permits for the non-residential use of historic structures.
Impacts/Issues: The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to obtain
approval of a Class A Special Use Permit from the Board of Commissioners for the non-
residential use of an historic structure. In some cases, the use of historic structures may
not only involve the historic structure itself,but also the surrounding property associated
with the structure.
The proposed amendment will clarify that Article 8.8.24 applies to the site on which a
historic structure is located, as well as the historic structure itself.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT:
8.8.24 HISTORIC SITES -NON RESIDENTIAL REUSE/MIXED
USE(CLASS A SPECIAL USE)
8.8.24.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8,the
following shall be supplied as part of the application:
a) The site plan,prepared by a North Carolina registered land
surveyor or engineer, shall also contain the following:
1) Location,width, and type of all internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation.
2) Location and dimensions of all on-site signage.
14
3) Boundaries of the site and distance to nearest residential
structures.
b) Description of the proposed use(s)of the site and the buildings
thereon, including the following:
1) Amount of area allocated to each use.
2) Number of full and part-time employees.
3) Number of clients and/or occupants expected to use the
facility.
4) Proposed hours of operation for non-residential uses of the
site and within buildings thereon.
C) Building plans for all existing or proposed structures to include
floor plans, elevations, and sections showing
restoration/rehabilitation proposed. Description of how the
historical style and character of the building and/or nrocxm is to
be enhanced.
d) Landscape plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing
or proposed trees,shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials.
e) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater
treatment for the proposed uses.
f) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the provision of fire,police and rescue protection to the site and
structures.
g) Evidence that the property is listed on the National Historic
Register or recognized by the State of North Carolina as places of
historic interest.
h)' The proposed development schedule for the site.
8.8.24.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an
application for this use:
141
a) The site plan submitted meets all requirements specified in sub-
sections 8.8 a) and 8.8.24.1 a).
b) Proposed uses and facilities are complementary and compatible
with surrounding area, and appropriate in the location proposed
given character of surrounding development. The proposed use of
the historic structure shall be of such a nature so as to preserve the
historic character of the site and the building. Development of the
site as proposed would have no adverse impact beyond the
building except for appropriate parking facilities.
c) Structural alterations of historic structures shall be of such a nature
as to preserve the historic character of the building(s) and site.
d) Fire, police and rescue services and water supply and wastewater
treatment methods are adequate to serve the proposed uses and
facilities.
e) Recreational areas, service areas,parking and screening are
adequate for the proposed use(s).
f) The site.is served by direct access to a State-maintained road.
g) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is adequate for the
proposed use(s).
h) All applicable requirements of Article 4, 5, 6, 8,9, 10 and 12 have
been satisfied.
This use is to be a Class A Special Use Permit in the following districts:
AR-Agricultural Residential
R1 - Residential-1
This Class A Special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six(6)
years.
Ordinance Review Committee: April 4, 1996
Planning Board:
BOCC:
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