HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH-NS ORD-1996-015 Proposed Subdivision Regulation Text Amendment Section III-C-4 and III-D-3c 143
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 1996
Action Agenda
Item # C 5(a&b)
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION III-C-4 and III-D-3-c ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes�Y No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
Proposed Amendment
Plat Release Form
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 delete the requirement
for a Planning Staff member to be present each time a final plat is recorded in the
Register of Deeds Office.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Subdivision Regulations require subdivision plats be recorded
in the presence of the Planning Department. The purpose of this provision is to
insure that all required auxillary documents, such as Road Maintenance
Agreements and Declaration of Restrictions are recorded with the plat.
Compliance with this provision would require that a Planning Staff member
accompany the applicant to the Register of Deeds Office each time a final plat is
' to be recorded. The Orange County Planning Staff and Register of Deeds office
have developed a system that provides the Register of Deeds with a list of items to
be recorded with the final plat. By providing this information the need for a
Planning Staff member to be present is alleviated. This allows the Register of
Deeds Office to know what documents must accompany the plat.
144
RECOMMENDATION: Section VII-D-3 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that proposed
amendments to the text of the Subdivision Regulations be presented at a joint
public hearing involving the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board. It
is at that time that the Planning Department's recommendation is presented.
Planning Department Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners find in the
affirmative, the Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed text
amendment.
No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or
Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has
75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation
within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation.
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 S, 1996
145
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
[DRAFT]
REFERENCE: Subdivision Regulations
Section III-C-4 Action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivision)
Section III-D-3-c Action Subsequent to Approval (major subdivision)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
Purpose of Amendment: The proposed amendment will delete the requirement for a
Planning Staff member to be present each time a final plat is recorded in the Register of
Deeds Office.
Impacts/Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require approved final plats for major
and minor subdivisions to be recorded in the presence of the Planning Department to
assure that all required documents associated with the Final Plat are recorded as well.
This requires a Planning Staff member to go to the Register of Deeds Office each time a
final plat is recorded. This process is time consuming for the Planning Staff member as
well as the applicant and has not been the practice of the Planning Department. A system
has been developed that provides the Register of Deeds with a list of items to be recorded
with the final plat,thereby alleviating the need for a Planning Staff member to be present.
When a final plat is released by the Planning Staff,the Staff fills out the plat release form
and checks applicable items to be recorded with the final plat. The staff member also
initials each document to be recorded. The applicant must present the plat release form,
along with the required documents to the Register of Deeds Office in order for the plat to
be recorded. After recordation,the Register of Deeds returns the list to the Planning Staff
to provide evidence that all required items were recorded. The list is then placed in the
project file.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT:
III-C-4: Action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivision)
The Planning Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse
approval on a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat if the Planning
Department approves an application either with or without conditions. The
applicant shall record such plat and any associated documents necessary to
assure conformance with regulations in the Officer of the Register of Deeds
within ninety(90)days after the Planning Director's endorsement of approval.
If such plat is not recorded within the specified time period,the minor
subdivision plat is void. The Planning Director may extend this deadline
140
provided the applicant can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the
deadline, but for reasons beyond his/her control, fails to meet the requirements
for recordation within that period. All such plats shall conform to drawing
specifications and certification requirements for Final Plats contained in
Section V-D of this Ordinance.
Recordation of the approved final plat,and auxiliary documentation as
required in the conditions of preliminary plat approval shall be done in
pe of an with the advice and consent of the Planning Department.
Final Plats and au?dliwy doeuments s4mi#ed to and appr-eved by the
III-C-3-c: Action Subsequent to A,=oval (major subdivision)
If the application is approved or approved with conditions,the Planning
Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse his/her approval on
a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat. The applicant shall record the
Final Plat in the Office of the Register of Deeds within ninety(90)days after
the Planning Director's endorsement of approval. If such plat is not recorded
within the specified time period, the Final Plat is void. The Planning Director
may extend the time period,provided the applicant can demonstrate a good
faith effort to comply with the deadline,but for reasons beyond his/her
control, fails to meet the requirements for recordation within that period. All
such plats shall conform to drawing specifications and certification
requirements for Final Plats contained in Section V-D of this Ordinance.
Recordation of the approved final plat, and auxiliary documentation as
required in the conditions of preliminary plat approval shall be done in
pr-esenee- e-f—and with the advice and consent of the Planning Department.
Planning DepaFtmeat by 10-00 a.m. may be Feeer-ded en the same da�-
Ordinance Review Committee: April 4, 1996
Planning Board:
BOCC:
147
PLANNING DEPARTNMNi r RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION PLAT
SUBDIVISION NAME
PROPERTY OWNER
This division is exempt from subdivision regulations and no auxiliary
documents are required to be recorded.
This division is subject to requirements of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations and the following auxiliary documents must be recorded with
the plat:
Declaration of Restrictions
Road Maintenance Agreement
Easement Agreement
Conservation Easement
Planning Staff authorized to release plat Date
(original initials of the above-named staff should appear in the lower right-hand corner of each
page of document)
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 114 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)
6. 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