HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-01-1996 - 9a a
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 1, 1996
Action Agenda
Item# 4-4
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 Yes—X—No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes—X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Willis
Separate Enclosure - 9/3/96 BOCC Agenda, Item VIII-G Extension 2583
Revisions to Permitted Use Table TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Proposed Amendment Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider amendment of Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to
telecommunication towers.
BACKGROUND: On September 3, 1996, the Board of Commissioners considered action on a
proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment related to telecommunication
towers.
Discussion of the item included:
• Concern with proposed Article 6.18, which would allow administrative
approval of "stealth" towers up to 160 feet in height;
• Questions regarding the proposed changes to the Permitted Use Table
(which copied too dark during duplication and could not be read); and
2
• Questions concerning the height limit below which Special Use Permit
approval would not be required. (It was the intent to allow staff approval
for towers shorter than 75 feet. Although there have not been requests for
these shorter towers as of this time, it is anticipated that in the future, the
height of towers will decrease while their numbers will increase.)
The Board of Commissioners continued the discussion to a subsequent meeting
in order to receive clarification regarding the Permitted Use Table and tower
height. A copy of the proposed Permitted Use Table is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment
with the following revisions:
1. Revise the Permitted Use Table and Article 6.18 to specify that
stealth towers 75 feet or shorter are permitted by right in certain
zoning districts (see attached Permitted Use Table) provided that
provisions of Article 6.18 are met.. Article 6.18 requires that the
tower be adequately disguised to minimize visual impact.
2. Insert the following as 8.8.17a.1i) Additional Information:
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.
3. Insert the following as 8.8.17a.2n) Standards of Evaluation
and change previous n)to o):
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
s
Q m GC>I Q� �►I m Q
ril va
o w r w m o
LUtI m wp df iF I w m LULL
m Cql d� 'M'I r w m c7
as
W
a a
W
� H W a oc m oql dl �► I . m a
a
M COD z m N.p m at I r m
n u
� o
3 z
N
� g
N O
v� CL 0. v v cn CA Z U F
N N N N
a a a a 0. a n.
�t
4
8.8.17 o,.a•,. .,..a Toley,ision:Fransmi#ing "°a v 6 T and Elevated Water
orage Tan (Class B Special Usel
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.
t, it be b •.+ a +l, tieff... ake .,ice
�AppSiG R
one uuas'dit - 1 use l.' L. w9uld + + ..f a :+h the of suf 8 e.+
1 plus applisants lase.
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.
5
riazcgiczCe pr-eviJiV" been made�v obtain ."aY vv on ..aa
1
reasonable basis pfevided the-addi4ional use-ivo
1
the opfien of leasing spare within , t storage mea
t) Adequate to n n h—as ti.^en for- the a ra4:......
7 plus one additional u
applieafA's use.
8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (NEW) 6
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:
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 pr=essed tower site.
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
Lowers within the search range:
(a) Tower height, as measured from the ground to the
highest point of the support 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
7
(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
-2. ;
3. A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be
located on any of the existing towers in the search range.
Euideaee, th..t the ., l:e„„t ;.. ..,il:«g to lease s e en its tewer- to
ether. tel B ' Pr-evided the-z use would d He
basis.
Q..eh a i e..ee shell .. :8t of-.
-1. Eepies a -a aetiee—sent-may se;ti€e —maiI to
telese i eatien toweF mss (IiA ., vided htlhe
tower- use>:s to apply feF space-en the proposed tower-. The
its-geaeffd lesatien, the goner-A mte s4fuetwe fer- leasing
the-termer
2. A eepy of eashresponse r-eeeived and the-amt's
easy request-te shave tAW.ver spare. Faetefs to eved
not-kited-fie, the fell i - -s ietareA eapaeity, mdie
fleewaey inteF&renee, geegr-apWeaal �aa
siibuilt tewffs, rest (if fees and -fer-. Au a
&Eeeed-the Best of a new fewer-), Fri-lifniwiefl-S ahat vlreuld
.
3r
tower- lessee disputes the e +:eeen I h r s fflvea the the
e� ..
Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating S
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower, '
such as lighting and coloring.
Draft bond or other security which will gmarantee the removal of the
tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12
months,
.
g, A listing of all propeea owners within 1000 feet of the parcel shall
be provided Each proper owner shall be notified of the public
hearing in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class B Special Us e
Permit) or Article 8.4.5(Class A Special Use Permit) of this
Ordinance.
h Photographs of a clearly-visible balloon floated at the proposed
tower location to the maximum height of the towers. Photographs
shall be taken from locations such as: property lines, and/or
nearby residential areas, historic sites, roadways. including scenic
roads and maior view corridors, and other locations as deemed
nece5S= by the Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the
pLoposed tower.
i The CUerial Use Permit application shall include a statement that
the facility and its equipment will comply with all federal state
and local emission requirements.
8.8.17a.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
Z-OPARg disaiet-.
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 equW te 50,04
tewen The selbaek a3ay be Fedu,ea to no toss_d..... 200 e
the tewer- height if an *ifies diat the proposed
sethaeks eentain the pow zone. the greater of
20%of the tower height. r the mhumum required setback.
9
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.
e) Ne54Us4ffes may be leeated V*Alifi the 441 Eene, W14r.
e)aeads to a radius of 100% of the tower-heig4o, emeept 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 10
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 such
agencies allow a choice between painting the tower or
installing strobe lighting. n.� ainting_ shall be the preferred
choice.
1) 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.
m) 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 Igriod 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.
A determination shall be made that the facility and its
eguWment will comply with all fe eral. state and local
emission requirements, and the Special Use Permit shall
include a statement that h facility and its equipment will
comply with all federal, state and local emission
requirements
The SS al Use Permit shall include a condition that the
electro-magngic radiation levels maintain compliance with
rreQ irements of the Federal Communication Commission
regarding emission of electromagnetic radiation. Within 30
d s of installation of equipment on the tower and within
36 days of the installation of my additional eQu pment in
the firtnre 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
o LU Orange Coun-ty may make such requests at any
time,not to exceed four times per year.
J
11
y 6.3.1 Principal Uses
There shall be no more than one principal use on an, zo ing lot except where:
a) permitted as hart 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
Q One of the use is an unmanned telecommunication tower subject to a year-
to-year or other short-term lease.
6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers( 330
New stealth telecommunication towers W 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 12=ose of the structure is. or visua4
appears to be something other than the support of teleco m nications
equipment: the apparent p=ose 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 Co=ly Zoning Ordinance.
The placement of telecommunication equipment on existing structures may
approved administratively provided that the equipment does not extend more than
20 feet above the structure. or 10% of the height of the structure, whichever is
greater. and height and setback limitations of the Zoning_Ordinance are met.
xr-:o- �a rS _- our u (vFUtr ? 7b--4-*JU,4 r.Oi e7c
i EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL 12
6211 New Jericho Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 019 0 - u r
Chairman AUG 2 7 l
Moses Carey, Jr., �f
Orange County Board of Commissioners
200 South Cameron Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Construction of Cellular Towers in Orange County
Dear Mr. Carey:
We request your office and the offices of those others listed below to immediately
direct copies of this letter to all public officials involved with deciding whether or not to
permit construction of cellular towers in Orange County specifically including the proposed
cellular tower near and strenuously objected to by the Emerson Waldorf School of which
I am President of the Board.
Specifically, we request that appropriate Orange County officials immediately put
into full force and effect a policy which requires any applicant applying for permission to
erect a cellular tower anywhere in Orange County to file a statement as part of the
application and thirty (30) days before a public hearing is held stating the following:
(a) A description of the applicant's perceived needs and why the specific location
applied for is deemed to be the only location suited to the applicant's needs.
(b) Describe with specificity all frequencies to be broadcast by the tower and for each
antenna on the tower the relative power of each frequency:
(i) at the tower site;
(ii) 1000 feet removed from the tower site; and
(iii) 2000 feet removed from the tower site.
(c) A description of what antennas other than applicant's antenna are intended to be
installed on the tower and the names of the owners of such other antennas.
(d) A description of all studies applicant has made which led to choosing the site
chosen.
(e) A description of efforts applicant has made to obtain other parties to share the
tower selected or for applicant to use an already existing tower.
(f) A motion of efforts applicant expects to make in the future to obtain other
parties to share the tower. 0.
post.r Fax Note 7671 °M° Mom
To FWR
GOD"* co.
to
P-its-ly% id i5 BO��-NHN x,Ek 91yb 13 14 P-02-102
Mr. Moses Carey
Page 2 13
(g) A description of aesthetic modifications to the tower the owner is prepared to make
to minimize aesthetic intrusion of the tower. (Note that Bell South has designed
for Cary a cellular tower to look like a tree. (News and Observer, page 68, 8/2/96).
(h) A description of the provisions applicant has made for removing the tower if by
reason of changes in technology or for any other reason the need for the tower is
outmoded.
We also request that any permit granted to use a tower be for some limited term,
not more than five years, and that any renewal of the permit be conditioned upon
performance satisfactory to Orange County.
We further request that the appropriate Orange County afficials require as a further
condition of granting a permit to erect a tower that the party to whom the permit is
granted agree to keep a designated official in Orange County informed at all tines as to
the following:
(a) Any change of ownership of the tower;
(b) Any addition to or removal from the tower of antennas;
(c) Any change in the frequencies or transmitting power associated with the tower,
(d) Any claims made against the owner arising out of operation of the tower,
(e) Any substantial change in the financial condition of the owner of the tower;
(f) Any change affecting the structural stability of the tower;
(g) A description and copies of any complaints filed against the owner by any Federal
or State regulatory agency;
(h) A description and copies of any complaints filed against the owner by any party
alleging transmissions from the tower as being the cause of damage to the health
of a human or wildlife of any kind; and
(h) Any change affecting the needs of the owner with respect to the tower.
Respectfully yours,
4c"?, oc-�c
Eve Olive, President
Emerson Waldorf School Board
cc: Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor. Town of Chapel Hill
306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Milne Nelson, Mayor, Town of Canboro
301 West Main Street. Canfboro, NC 27510
Horace Johnson, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
101 East Orange Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278
TOTAL P.02
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 1996
Action Agenda
Item#_ 1=-G
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 Yes_X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes(pp. 5 - 8) Mary Willis
Response to 11/27/95 Comments(pp. 9 - 14) Extension 2583
Proposed Amendment(pp. 15 -22)
Existing Provisions (pp. 23 -24) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Letter from BellSouth(pp. 25 -27) Hillsborough-732-8181
Letter from Co. Attorney(pp. 28 -29) Durham -688-7331
Letter from 360° (pp. 30 -36) Mebane -227-2031
EMF Studies (pp. 37- 51) Chapel Hill -967-9251
June, 1995 Zoning News (APA) (pp. 52 - 55)
5/28/96 Public Hearing Minutes(pp. 56 - 58)
8/7/96 Planning Board Minutes(pp. 59 -' 62)
PURPOSE: To consider 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.
2 � •
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,
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 raised at the
November 27, 1995 public hearing. Changes to the original proposal were
presented for public hearing on May 28, 1996. Additional revisions are
recommended based on the comments received at the May public hearing,
May 28, 1996 Public Hearing Comments
1. One of the major issues raised at the public hearing concerned the
potential health effects of electro-magnetic radiation..
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704(B)(iv)and the
Federal Communications Commission New National Wireless Tower
Siting Policies (Section 1.1307(b))prohibit denial of a cellular
telephone facility on the basis of health effects if it meets applicable
standards issued by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI).
Studies conducted in 1994 and 1995 for a 360°tower located at 515
South Greensboro Street,Carrboro, are attached. Conclusions of the
1995 study state that"exposure levels measured on the ground and
inside the equipment shelter.......continue to be more than one hundred
times less than the protection guides set forth in ANSI C95.1-1982..... It
is extremely likely that a more sensitive electromagnetic monitor would
show the exposure levels to be thousands of times less than the
maximums established by the standards..."
Attached is information from the American Planning Association
regarding electromagnetic fields associated with communication
facilities. It states that no scientific study has shown a specific
correlation between cancer and cellular communication devices.
Likewise, no study has conclusively proven them to be safe. It has not
been possible to obtain conclusive evidence thusfar because most
homes are equipped with a variety of appliances that generate
3
electromagnetic fields,therefore it is difficult to isolate the effect of any
single source.
2. The amendment presented for public hearing in May 1996 did not
include the previously-proposed requirement that the "tower and
antenna will not unreasonably interfere with the view of or from any
historic site, scenic road or major view corridor". .Staff had
recommended that the provision be deleted due to the difficulty in
defining or interpreting"unreasonable interference". One citizen who
spoke at the public hearing suggested that instead of being eliminated,
the wording be changed to "significant adverse impact". This
recommended change is incorporated in the proposed text,
3. It was also suggested that balloons be used to help visualize the height
of the tower in order to determine its visual impact. The proposed
application requirements have been revised to include a provision that a
balloon be floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum
height of the tower, and that photographs be taken from areas such as
property lines, and nearby residential areas and roadways.
4. One representative from the telecommunication industry spoke at the
public hearing. He expressed opposition to providing detailed
information regarding co-location efforts for towers outside of the
search range, as well as to information which may not be relevant(such
as detailed structural information where the tower owner has refused to
lease space on a commercially reasonable basis). Other concerns
cited included tower setbacks, and the application of subdivision
requirements to tower sites. (It has been determined that subdivision
approval is not required for leased tower sites.)
Additional comments concerning industry concerns are included in the
attached letters from representatives of BellSouth and 360°
Communications.
Proposed Revisions
The Planning Staff has incorporated the following changes in the proposal as
presented at the May 28, 1996 public hearing in response to comments
received through the public hearing process:
1) Add 8.8.17.2(1) (Standards of Evaluation)as follows: 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.
4
2) Add 8.8.17a.I(h) (Additional Information) as follows: In addition to
the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall
be submitted as part of the application......(h) Photographs of a clearly-
visible balloon floated at the proposed tower location to the maximum
height of the towers. 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.
3) Revise 8.8.17a.1(d) to clarify that tower height is measured from
ground level to the highest part of the support structure.
4) Add 8.8.17a.2(n)to require that compliance with FCC emission
standards be demonstrated by including monitoring through periodic
testing of equipment and submittal of results to the Planning
Department.
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on August 7, 1996
and recommended approval, including the revisions included in 1)through 4)
above(see attached minutes). The vote was unanimous.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment as
revised,per the Planning Board recommendation.
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes 5
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
46 provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone.
6
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 .4ar'eW.a representative of the Carolina PCS Limited Partnership, made several
8 comments. This Partnership, which is comprised of Bell 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 Riclrisheewe� anager of Forsythe Development In" er/operation of
29 CGsltulallf' , reiterat 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 rson— Communications, expressed agreement with
42 previous comments. HHee a resse a 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
7
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 Jerry EOW North Carolina General Counsel for Sprint Cellular, 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 Jeff Lansing, wll agreed with the previous comments. He requested
27 that a open discussion be held 'wr ry and County staff, the Planning Board, citizens , and
28 County Commissioners to facilitate developing standards.
29
30 Commissioner Wilhoit 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
.8
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-today 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 Umt these companies do not want
16 notification requirements is so that the public wild not be infacmed.
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 retumed 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 Willis 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.
9
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.
F.ncomging 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 a:;
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=&g=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.
10
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,
11
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 disguised 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 101/o of the height of the structure,
whichever is greater,provided that height and setback limitations of the
Zoning Ordinance are met
12
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 a side setback of 88 feet.
13
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
requinment 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.
14
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.
15
8.8.17 Elevated �,
torage Tan (C ays B Social Usk
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.
Meae"e-basis.
F
.
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.
r
1 6
applieem's use.
8.8,17a Telecommunication Towers (NEW)
17
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:
AA listing of all towers within a 1/2-mile (for towers shorter
than 200 feed or 1-mile for towers 200 feet or tailed radius
of the p=sed tower site.
2) Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search range
within which the tower eauinment can function as intended.
The following information shall be rnovided for all existing
towers within the search range:
(a) Tower height, as measured from the ground to the
highest noint of the support 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 17a
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
2. ,
3. A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be
located on any of the existing towers in the search range.
MR
4%
,
2.
,
.
-3-
We
Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower, 18
such as lighting and coloring.
Draft bond or other security which will &Warantee the removal of the
tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12
months,
9. A listing of all property owners within 1000 feet of the parcel shall
be provided. Each property owner shall be notified of the public
heanng in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class R Special Use
Permit) or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of tWs
Ordinance.
h Photog=hs of a clearly-visible balloon floated at the propgsed
tower location to the maximum height of the towers: Photogm hs
shall be taken from locations such as: propcM lines_ and/nr
nearby residential_ areas. historic sites. roadways. including' scenic
roads and major view corridors. and other locations as deemed
necessary by the Planning_Staff to a3sess the visual impact of the
pposed tower.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
6) The minimi' let size shag be as nquked by the applieable
; g
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
qejhgak
. the greater of
2(r of the tower heigbL 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.
19
gene, ,
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 soh
ggencies allow a choice between :a'�>Z the tower or
installing strobe lighting_ painting shy be the p= 20
choice.
1) 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.
m) 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 baqual_ified contractor. The
amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the estimate.
The Special Use Permit shalt include a condition that the
electro-maan etic radiation levels maintain compliance with
requirements of the Federal Communication Commission.
T
re arding 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 das if so =Q.uested by Orange
Cog=._. Orange Countv_=y makC such requests at my
time_not to exceed four times pgLyear.
63.1 Principal Uses
Thane stall be no more than one princina_1 use on any zo.ning lot except where:
aL_ r_rt of a Planned Developm=o_r
b) the Parcel is less than 2 acres in sin and non-residential multiple uses are
p=sed within a single papal structure:or
Q One of the uses is an unmanned telecommunication tower subiect to a year-
tyear or other short-term lease.
¢,18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Tel Mon Towers_ W)_
21
New te to 160 feet in height whicb are sufficiently -
disoLised cn as to minimize visual ipact may be approved administratively by .
the Planning all et,ff�n,s idea «�; of the ;�vtSioTL con wined in Article 8.8.17a
Y
are meL A new tower max be considered slifficiently disguised if the prim=
.n„a.,r,er of the strnet=is or visually ap . something other Itm the
e nme^t• the apparent pumose is customarily
i of tete�.vr:1ill--�eduvi� _S�Bl.
care; as acces�on• to a use�y ich is allowed in the zomno-dis ct: and the
stnicture and_its,.prim=use cOM121Y 3Z&thg Orange County y Z.o env Ordinance.
The placem-ent of t nent on existing strictures may be
approved administratively provided that Ilz equipment docs not extend more than
26 feet anovy the structure. or 1 0 ight of the structure. whichever is
greater and height and s_cthack Imitations of the Zoning Ordinance aze met.
p
22
IT
. p
ra O
m
m m .
N N
m m
m m • .
>
O
f-�
c0
,� N E
ai m m T-
w co
♦ u
� • C7 m m • • • V
J J O
qq y ^ U
6
N 11
fa » � 0
D w w
N C3 o`". .�i m m u U)
C3 , C
p F < m O
m m m ^ E
5 m m m a�
auu
Cr
s �
cc m a m
O)
w co 09
G
O
s m • m m E
N r4
z m m L� O
m >
3 O
as m m . . m H a
CL
c co
+> >
omc m . m . . . m omc N O CJ 4
rl c6
J 0� mmaa C �1
a
y•per +• N N � n.
L O J
� M J P .• Nn Sr C
1.
U •rl
(1) co
Y J 7. C!! y e O ..' C' U w 0� M C •
M L • .• l� .. '4 s +ui Y MCMg m • u
Y O� • A • • M y ++ • 7 C J C Y
01 L.. .y•O .+ G @ V Y CCCC Y O OC
aLn a�w '• oi
as q ZU H Dw tlO im fJ
<
1� O a O N N N r1 ♦ N N
d d d 16 16 96 6 96 6 6 16
standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require
22 3
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 Ra to 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
s 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.
1 _ 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.
j
a 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 Sbodards 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
ro 10 10 ro ro 10 IV w N N N N w N H H H
N:. N
T In .91 W N N N O 10 m J J J
C) to S O C) H C, H z m m cn m H 10 M H H In >r 7
A) rt w m o p 1 o n 0 at n o rt
e w rt M < 0 F- a J '.Y '.7' n V N tl) m H N O
ro rt m P. m rt < 0 0 0 0 rt (1) rt m m n
P- n n r• m M ro o o p o a s n M n a
Sa o m rt n 0 n r H W H r " 0 0 m 0 W
m 0 �+ G m N- 0 rn m w m 7-- n -
CT m U) m rt P. fn M ry w 'J rt
m K to G r m rt to P. `< rt H E H
.7 m a F'- rt 0) H• P. rt P. a C+] )
W a .'1 i-- w m O d C h1 O w F, P. P. t✓
rt P. p, r m p 0+1 w O _p p r1 n n �x m
a p n m m a m a a m <
o w P. 11 r G n w 3 0 n rt rt w
rl (D ry W w n r- n m rt m H. r• rr k
.. rt P. N m rt 0 rt 0 p p W
m to N H w
N NN
0) w
H m N- m O H H
E ry
w tm7 m m
w N H R' m 3 w w m m t
Y 1 1 ro m a rt N +,
r in to r rt N- r a-
H- n m o
�o
H u'j t Lo u W m R+ i tr
.v r
N x7 t11 M Y • Q7 w 'y ptl 017 x1 - 1.:
b b7 » r ♦ btl ly • y w to
r H
�
k • b7 * ,b w W
P Ul
m » » m + Y ro ro m it n n ro
tLI
11
y to ao ,d7 IPA
~ a7 » y ro
ro n 10 'o a
H r n n (n
yH yH b1 !'3
z w + to
to
N N m Di
W W H H
>t rt ! Otl ♦ ♦ ,b W to n m
ro y w w
m
tf1 t*1
to Od H
H >t' • fp >f fb M N
N ,
M.
1 to
i
t �
H Ij I Y
d
r
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, existing
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.
r - 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.
r. 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:
r .
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or otherwise,
r� 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 24
property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces
to public health and safety. '
t
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 TemQorarY Use (Class B SMial 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:
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, parking 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, S, 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
PETREE STOCKTON, L.L.P. 25`
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4101 LAKE BOONE TRAIL,SUITE 400
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27607-6519
TELEPHONE(919) 420-1700
FAX(919) 420-1600 ONEN 0MC[S
CHARLOTTE, N C.
M. GRAY STYERS, JR.
19191 420-1715 WINSTON-SALEM. N.C.
June 14, 1996
Orange County Planning Board-
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Regarding Telecommunication Towers
Dear Chair and Planning Board Members:
As regional counsel for BellSouth Carolinas PCS Limited Partnership ("BellSouth"),
we would like to respond to the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments regarding
telecommunication towers. As you know, BellSouth is currently planning and constructing
its system to provide the first digital personal communication service ("PCS") in North
Carolina. This system, which should be operational later this summer, includes several sites
in Orange County. Because BellSouth is one of the newest entrants in the wireless
telecommunications market and is building its system this year from scratch, we are
extremely interested and concerned about the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments
and how they will effect BellSouth's ability to provide this new technology to the residents of
Orange County.
(1) BellSouth recognizes the issues raised by the increasing number of
telecommunication towers that have been needed in the past few years as consumer demand
for mobile wireless telecommunication service increases and as new technologies become
available. Consequently, BellSouth attempts to co-locate its antennas on existing or proposed
structures whenever possible, constructs its own towers to accommodate co-location by other
wireless communication carriers, and is a leader in utilizing stealth applications, such as
church steeples& clock towers, light poles, flag poles and existing buildings. Therefore, we
agree with the Planning Staff's recommendation that stealth applications be encouraged and
support the p mposal of a new Section 6.18.
This new section, however, could be interpreted to make stealth installation of
antennas on existing buildings extremely difficult unless the existing structure already met the
set-back limitations of the zoning ordinance. BellSouth has successfully avoided constructing
additional towers in many arras by locating antennas on top of existing multi-story buildings.
This stealth application does not effect the existing building's relationship to property lines
and other structures. Therefore, there is no reason for expanded set-back requirements in
this situation. We would propose, therefore, deleting the last clause of the new proposed
26
Orange County Planning Board
June 14, 1996
Page 2
section 6.18 after the word "greater," as being unnecessary and contrary to'the section's
intent.
(2) BellSouth strongly recommends that the zoning ordinances clarify that a leased
site for a telecommunications tower does not trigger the requirements of the County's
subdivision ordinances, so long as the lease does not create a separate, delineated parcel that
survives its use as a telecommunication tower site. None of BellSouth's sites require a lease
of one or two acres of land and none require an improved right-of-way or easement of at
least 50 feet in width. Most BellSouth sites are on very small leased parcels of
approximately 40 x 60 feet and require access only for construction and occasional
maintenance and inspection (and, eventually, removal). The leases terminate whenever a
tower is removed and does not allow the leased site to be used for any other purpose.
Neither the property owner or BellSouth intends to create a parcel for potential residential or
any other use. Therefore, the subdivision requirements are not necessary and should be
expressly noted to be inapplicable.
(3) Proposed section 8.8.17a.1(g) would increase the area in which property
owners must be notified of the public hearing from 500 to 1,000 feet of the parcel on which
the structure site is to be located. As discussed during prior meetings, most PCS towers
initially constructed to provide basic coverage are less than 200 feet tall. Any towers needed
to provide additional rapacity in the future will most likely be shorter, as noted in Section 7
of the Response to November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments. Towers less than 200
feet tall, as a general rule, either cannot be seen at all, or at least are not noticeable, from a
distance greater than 500-600 feet if there are any trees at all between the observer and the
structure.
As you know, BellSouth often conducts informal meetings with area property owners
prior to the formal public hearings in order to answer questions, address concerns, and
provide information.at an early stage in the siting process. Occasionally, these public
meetings result in BellSouth modifying its original plans for a site. Our experience at these
meetings has ban that, once the location of the site is identified, residents living more than
100-150 yards from the structure often leave,because it is so far away from them.
Moreover, bs = BellSouth attempts to locate its structures on large parcels of undeveloped
land whenew possible, notifying every property owner within 1000 feet of the property line
.of the panel is not only unnecessary, but also difficult.
For all of these reasons, BellSouth proposes alternative language requiring notification
of all owners of property within 3 or 4 times the tower height from the base of the structure.
27
Orange County Planning Board
June 14, 19%
Page 3
Thank you for this opportunity to share some of our concerns about the proposed
ordinance. BellSouth is excited to be offering this new PCS service to Orange County, and
we would be glad to provide additional information regarding any of these issues discussed
above.
Very truly yours,
PETREE STOCKTON, L.L.P.
M. Gray Sty , Jr '
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Weldon, BellSouth PCS
Mr. Keith Lee, BellSouth PCS
Ms. Mary Willis, Orange County Planning Dept.
28
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919.732.11%
FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919-732.7997 GEOFFREY E.GLMHILL
June 21, 1996
Ms. Mary Willis
Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: Telecommunications Towers
Dear Mary:
This letter confirms our June 20, 1996 telephone
conversation. Upon reconsideration of the question of whether
telecommunications tower installations constitute a subdivision
of land, it is now my opinion that they do not. North Carolina
General Statutes $ 153A-335 defines a subdivision, for the
purpose of subdivision regulations, as "all divisions of a tract
or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or other
divisions for the purpose of sale or building developments
(whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land
involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing
streets. . . . " All of the telecommunications tower installations
that have occurred in Orange County have occurred pursuant to
leases of 25 years or less and, the facilities placed on the
leased premises have been towers, guy wires, electronic equipment
and perhaps a small facilities building. It is now my view that
these leases are not sales of property and, it is now my view
that the facilities erected on the tower sites are not building
development. Therefore, unless the tower site involves the
dedication of a new public street or a change in an existing
public street (not likely) , there is no division of land for
subdivision regulation purposes. I therefore recommend that the
applications for telecommunications towers be reviewed by the
Planning Department pursuant to Orange County Zoning Ordinance
requirements only.
The consequence of zoning regulation review only is that it
will not be necessary for the Planning Department or me to review
lease agreements. between the tower company and the property
owner. However, it will be necessary for any special use permit
29
Ms. Mary Willis
Page 2
June 21, 1996
to be applicable to the tract or parcel of land on which the
telecommunications tower is located. Put another way; if the
telecommunications company does not subdivide its leased parcel,
thus creating a separate land parcel for land records purposes,
the special use permit will apply to whatever tract or parcel of
land is separate for land records purposes. The corollary of
this is that the applicant must provide the Planning Department,
with its application, with the legal description of the
appropriate parcel and evidence of title to enable the Planning
Department to prepare the special use permit. If you have any
questions about this, please call.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN GLEDHILL 8 HARGRAVE, P.C.
Ge ey Gle 11
GEG/lsg
xc: E. Christopher Cox Esquire
lsg\c:\wp60\willtel.ltr
30
LYNCH, EATMAN & TWIDDY, L.L.P.
LAWYERS
SUITE 195, CAROLINA PLACE
2626 GLENWOOO AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27608
919/571-3332
FAX 919/571-9983
MARIA M. LYNCH MAILINADDRESS:
JEROME R. EATMAN, JR. POST OFFICE BOX 30515
CURTIS A. TWIDDY RALEIGH, NC 27622-0515
KATHERINE B. WILKERSON
ALBERT M. BENSHOFF
July 23, 1996
Chair Joan Jobsis, Orange County Planning Board
Vice Chair Karen Barrows
Leo Allison, S.A.M. Brooks, Margaret Brown
H. Paul Hoecke, Cheryl Howie, Arnie Katz,
Renee Price, Cherie Rosamond, Robert Strayhorn,
Elizabeth Walters
RE: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments in Regard to
Telecommunication Towers
Dear Chair and Planning Board Members:
Based on the terms of the proposed amendments and the comments
of the staff found in the Telecommunication Tower's Response to November
27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments, the primary purpose of the proposed
amendments appears to be to minimize the number of new towers in Orange
County. The comments made by the staff and others at the recent public
hearings also seem to indicate that there is concern over construction of
unnecessary communications towers in Orange County. While most of the
proposed amendments do not present serious problems for the industry,
we are concerned that they have little prospect for accomplishing the
County's desired results.
The staff has done an excellent job in studying this issue and in
looking at the way other jurisdictions have approached the problem of tower
proliferation. Unfortunately, very few jurisdictions have approached this
issue in any comprehensive manner and, as a result, the desired results are
seldom achieved. Many areas have been successful in making the process
extremely burdensome and costly for the industry, but none have
substantially reduced the number of towers constructed in their community.
The best that can be achieved, particularly in light of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eliminates prohibition of new
towers as an option, is to regulate the siting of transmission facilities in a
way which will achieve the best possible mitigation of the appearance of
31
July 23, 1996
Page 2 `
these facilities. The approach suggested by the current draft zoning
amendments is to minimize the number of towers by requiring companies to
share towers. The economic benefit of co-location to wireless companies is
so great that voluntary co-location has been practiced for several years.
The reason most companies have not objected to the mandatory co-location
in your current ordinance is because they follow this procedure in the
normal course of business-., Tower proliferation is not a function of lack of
co-location; it is a product of existing wireless technology. In this regard, I
have set forth below some observations for your consideration.
a. Limitations of Wireless Technolooy. The biggest cause of
tower proliferation in all areas is the nature of wireless technology
and the number of companies desiring to provide this technology to .
the public. The number, height and location of transmission towers is
dictated by customer demand, topography, and the low power
technology used to provide conventional cellular and PCS service.
Based on my experience over the last eight years as North Carolina
general counsel to Centel/Sprint/360° Communications and special
zoning counsel to Sprint Spectrum PCS in Pennsylvania, New York,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, I
estimate that the failure, or inability, of a company to locate on
existing towers or structures accounts for less than five percent of
the new towers constructed. The reason most new towers are
constructed is the company's need for a transmission facility in a
certain geographic area where there are no existing towers or other
structures suitable for the transmission facility. No amount of
governmentally mandated or encouraged co-location can change the
fact that, in a predominantly rural area like Orange County, most
companies will need to build new transmission facilities to serve their
customers..
b- Co-Location, Policies. Most local ordinances, including the
proposed amendments to the Orange County Code, focus their
attention on "forcing" companies to attempt to co-locate on existing
towers or facilities. While there is nothing wrong with these
regulations, they will have little effect on tower proliferation. These
regulations presume that the wireless communications companies
have some desire to avoid utilizing existing facilities in their search
areas. This is untrue. The reason the wireless communication
companies do not object to co-location policies generally is because
they do it now. There is, on the average, a cost savings of
approximately $300,000 every time a company can utilize an existing
tower. The cost savings will exceed this $300,000 estimate in
32
July 23, 1996
Page 3
jurisdictions like Orange County where the approval process for a new
tower is extraordinarily lengthy and cumbersome. The only effect
that the information required under Section 8.8.17aA will have is to
increase the cost to the company of getting a tower site approved.
The typical "search area" for a cellular transmission facility is
1 /4 to 1 /2 mile. The industry does not object to providing information
regarding existing structures within this radius because all of those
structures will have been thoroughly examined prior to making the
application. If there is a tower in that search area, the company will
have made every effort to locate its facility on that tower because the
cost savings are enormous. The list of towers or other structures
within a one mile radius of towers taller than 200 feet is irrelevant
because most of these towers are too far out of the search area for
the company to use. If the company could use those towers, it would
do so.
If the May draft amendments are to be retained with only minor
changes, then I suggest the following amendments:
1 ) 1 suggest that the County collect the information required under
Section 8.8.17a.1 when it has some relevance to co-location. The
requirement to list all towers within a one mile radius of proposed towers
taller than 200 feet will produce a list containing towers too distant to be
used for co-location. This requirement will make the process more time
consuming and costly but will not result in fewer towers.
2) Section 8.8.17a1 .(d) requires applicants to provide all of the
following information for all towers within the search range:
- tower height
- existing and planned users
- can the proposed antennas be accommodated on the existing tower?
- an explanation of why the tower cannot be used by the applicant;
- and `assess whether the existing tower could be structurally
strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters and related
equipment could be protected from Electro-Magnetic Interference,
and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of
the existing tower."
It may not be possible to supply all of the information listed above for
every tower within the search range because some of the information may
be proprietary. If a tower owner refuses an offer of co-location, then it
33
July 23, 1996 J
Page 4
should be unnecessary to "assess whether the tower could be structurally
strengthened." Submitting the required information should be dependent on
whether the tower can be used for co-location. I suggest drafting Section
6.8.17a.1 .(d) to contain a conditional alternative.as follows:
"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 he search range:
(a) Tower height;
(b) Existing tower users;
(c) Planned tower users, if available;
(d) If the tower'owner will consider co-location at a height usable by
the applicant, then
1 ) Whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to
be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural
instability or radio frequency interference; and/or
2) 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 electro-
magnetic interference, and generally describe the means and
projected cost of shared use of the existing tower."
3) To my knowledge, only Orange County interprets the General
Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision
Ordinance.. Most transmission sites are on small tracts of leased property.
We ask for additional relief from this interpretation.
4) The-area in which property owners are to be notified of a Class B
Special Use Permit application is proposed to be increased from 500 to
1 ,000 feet. A Class B Special Use Permit can only be issued for towers
under 200;faet. There is no reason to notify a property owner 1 ,000 feet
away from a 200 foot tower, unless you are planning to increase the notice
area for all Special Use Permits. The standards for a Class B Special Use
Permit under your current ordinance makes any concerns of residents 1 ,000
feet away from a 200 foot tower very hard to address. Any impact of a
200 foot (or lower) tower on a property owner 1 ,000 feet away is going to
be very difficult to establish in the context of a quasi-judicial Special Use
Permit hearing.
July 23, 1996 34
Page 5
5) Both the November and May drafts provide that minimum setbacks
from the base of the tower to the property boundary will be equal to the
height of the tower unless the tower owner acquires an easement to
adjacent property. (Section 8.8.17.2.(b)) In that case, the setback may be
reduced by up to 50%. An easement is a legal estate in land. Easements
are purchased just like other estates in real property. The easement
requirement will provide the level of legal formality necessary to prevent a
neighboring property owner from simply giving permission to a tower owner
to reduce the setback. An illustration of the typical use of a setback
reduction easement is attached.
6) At the public hearing considerable interest was expressed in the
health effects of eleciro-magnetic radiation from cellular antennas.
Questions were raised as to whether local governments regulatory authority
has been preempted by Congress.
Section 704 (B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reads,
"No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions." Section 704 (b) requires the FCC
to "make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions" within 180 days of the passage of the Act, or by early
August.
The Federal Communications Commission New National Wireless
Tower Siting Policies, dated April 23, 1996, established the uniform
national standards for evaluating tower siting decisions based on the health
effects of electro-magnetic frequency radiation. The Policies state "Section
704(b) gives preemptive effect to these existing rules. ... Presently, RF
emission requirements are contained in Section 1 .1307(b) of the FCC's
rules, 47 C.F.R. 11 .1 307(b), for all services." Section 1 .1307 (b) cross-
references the "Radio Frequency Protection Guides recommended in
American Ifttional Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure
to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz (ANSI
695.1-1982) issued by the American National Standards Institute..."
This means that no application for a cellular telephone facility may be
rejected on the grounds of health effects if the proposed facility meets the
federally established radio frequency thresholds contained in ANSI (95.1-
1982). Local governments can (and should) require a statement that a
proposed facility will be operated in compliance with the federal standards.
35
July 23, 1996
Page 6
For your general information on this issue, I have attached two
studies by Denny & Associates, P.C., consulting radio frequency engineers.
These studies measure the electro-magnetic radiation discharged by the
360° Communications Company tower next to the school on Merrit Mill
Road in Chapel Hill. Both studies show that the maximum radiation levels
from this tower is about 10.0 times less than the ANSI C95.1-1982
standard.
Please contact me if I can provide any more information or any
clarification on any of the issues raised in this letter.
Very trul yours,
J me R. atman, Jr.
AMB:sla
Attachment
cc: Scott Martenson
fAsussM3601oranpslson2.jtr
i c
36
Illustration of a 100 Foot Setback
Reduction by Easement on Parcel B
a
a
I
oa I
oa
a
o � �
04 Ak
as
- ssNOOT
o
� • z�• T I
l
x a
as
a I
m
ova I
a � I
JULES COHEN 3 ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 37
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
s
ENGINEERING STATEMENT
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH SURVEY
SPRINT CELLULAR COMPANY
STATION KNKA293
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Electromagnetic Feld strength measurements were made by the undersigned at the
transmitting site of Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service station
KNKA293. The measurements were made on April 28, 1994, on behalf of Sprint Cellular
Company, licensee of KNKA293. Locations on the cell site grounds, both inside and*outside the
tower, and in the equipment shelter were surveyed to determine the levels of radio-frequency
energy present.
Data collected during the survey were evaluated against two standards which establish
the maximum levels of radio-frequency energy to which humans may be exposed without known
harmful biological effects. The two standards are American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
C95.1-1982 and ANSLInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) C95.1-1992.
ANSVIEEE C95.1-1992 is the revision of C95.1-1982. The protection guide levels specified in
ANSI C95.1-1982 have been adopted by the Federal Communications Commission as the
acceptable levels of human exposure to RFR. The FCC currently is considering adoption of the
revised standard and most likely will do so in the next twelve months. By evaluating the survey
data against both the existing and revised standards, there should be no need to repeat the survey
effort at such time as the FCC adopts the revised standard.
Survey measurements were made at representative locations on the ground at the cell
site, both buh md outside the tower fence, and inside the equipment shelter. The exposure level
at each location w veyed was below the sensitivity threshold of the measurement instrument and
well below the exposure limits 'established by either standard Further discussion of the survey
follows.
JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 38
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
Engineering Statement Page 2
Carrboro, North Carolina
Site Descriotion
The surveyed cellular site is located at 515 South Greensboro Street, Carrboro, Orange
County, North Carolina. The geographic coordinates of the site, referenced to the 1983 North
American Datum, are: 350 54'09"North Latitude, 790 04' 11" West Longitude. A 180-foot self-
supporting tower has been erected at the site to support the KNKA293 base station antennas. Two
Decibel Products, type DB810, transmitting antennas are mounted at the top of the tower with
centerlines 187 feet above ground level (AGL). Six other antennas are mounted near the top of
the tower, but these antennas are for receiving only. Access to the tower is restricted to
authorized personnel by a fence with a lockable gate.
Exoosure Standards
As stated earlier, analysis of the data collected in this survey is based on two
standards for human exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: ANSI C95.1-1982, the
currently adopted FCC standard, and ANSVIEEE C95.1-1992, the revision of ANSI C95.1-1982.
The FCC is in the process of changing its rules to incorporate the revised standard, ANSUIEEE
C95.1-1992, in place of the current standard, ANSI C95.1-1982. It is expected that the FCC will
incorporate the revised standard into its rules with few changes.
ANSI= C95.1-1982 specifies maximum exposure in terms of frequency-dependent
protection gudda . The protection guides are concerned with total whole-body absorption of radio-
frequency awgy ova any 0.1-hour period. All of the radio-frequency sources at the KNKA293
cellular silwam in the 300 to 3000 megahertz(MHz) frequency range. The protection guide level
for this frequency range fonds to an average equivalent plane wave power density that may
be calculated using the formula.
i
S=
300
JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
9
CONSULTING ENGINEIMS `
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 '
Engineering Statement Page 3
Carrboro, North Carolina
where f is frequency in megahertz and S is power density in milliwatts per square centimeter
(mWJcm'-). Given this relationship, the most restrictive exposure guide level would occur at
869 MHz, the lowest possible operating frequency for cellular base stations. Applying this
frequency to the formula yields a protection guide level of 2.9 mW/cmz.
The revised standard, C95.1-1992, also specifies maximum exposure in terms of a
frequency-dependent maximum level, but, instead of a protection guide, this level is referred to
as a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) level. The new standard also categorizes exposure
environments as controlled or uncontrolled. The 1982 standard did not distinguish between
exposure environments. Under C95.1-1992, controlled environments are locations where there
is exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a
concomitant of employment, by other cognizant persons, or as the incidental result of transient
passage through arras where analysis shows the exposure levels may be above the MPEs for
uncontrolled environments but less than the MPEs for controlled environments. The MPE for
controlled environments under the 1992 standard for emissions in the 300 to 3000 MHz frequency
range is the same as the 1982 protection guide level and therefore may be calculated using the
formula given above. The averaging time for controlled environment exposures is also 0.1 hour
as with the 1982 standard. Thus, in this case, the MPE for controlled environments would be the
same as the protection guide level, 2.9 mW/cm=. The base of the KNKA293 tower, which is
enclosed by a fence, is an example of a controlled environment. Locations inside the KNKA293
equipment shehw also are examples of a controlled environment.
JULES COHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING E:/GINEEIs 40
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
Engineering Statement Page 4
Carrboro, North Carolina
Uncontrolled environments are locations where there is exposure of individuals who
have no knowledge or control of their exposure. A residential area would be an example of an
uncontrolled environment. The MPE for uncontrolled environments for emissions in the 300 to
3000 MHz frequency range may be calculated using the formula
S= f
1500
where, as before, f is the frequency in megahertz, and S is power density in milliwatts per square
centimeter. While there are some exceptions, in general, the MPEs for uncontrolled environments
are one-fifth the MPEs for controlled environments, and the averaging times for uncontrolled
environments are five times longer than for controlled environments. As was the case with the
protection guide level and the MPE for controlled environments, the most restrictive MPE for
uncontrolled environments occurs at 869 MHz. Applying this frequency to the formula yields an
MPE for uncontrolled environments 0.58 mW/em=.
Measurement Procedure
Electromagnetic field strength measurements were made using a Narda, model 8716,
serial number 06052, electromagnetic monitor calibrated in units of milliwatts per square
centimeter. The model 8761, serial number 02003, isotropic probe was used for aU electric field
measurements. The elecorornaglnetic monitor exhibits of sensitivity threshold of 0.005 mW/cm2.
The sensitivity 6resbold of the instrument corresponds to 0.17 percent of the MPE for controlled
environments and 0.86 percent of the MPE for uncontrolled environments. Because of the
frequencies it use at the site and the distances from the radiation sources being measured, the
electric field compoemt of radiation alone was sufficient to define exposure, and a full course of
magnetic field measurements was deemed unnecessary. However, a model 8731, serial number
02030, isotropic probe was used for spot magnetic field measurements. The electromagnetic
monitor and probes were calibrated as a system in April 1992.
JULES COHEN 3 ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTI;IG ErGINEntS 41
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
Engineering Statement Page 5
Cantoro, North Carolina
Measurement data provided by the electromagnetic monitor were recorded by a
Holaday, model 19-3320, data logger. The data logger input was calibrated to the electromagnetic
monitor output to record data in units of equivalent plane wave power density, milliwatts per
square centimeter. The data logger was programmed to sample the meter output once each
second. Data were logged for 20-second sample periods and, at the end of each sample period,
the average equivalent plane wave power density encountered over the course of the sample period
would have been calculated had the exposure levels been above the sensitivity threshold of the
instrument. Then, the calculated average and measured minimum and maximum power density
levels for each sample period would have been stored in the data logger memory for later analysis.
The extremely low maximum exposure levels present at the site made rigorous analysis of the
measurement data unnecessary.
On the ground and inside the equipment shelter, the probe was scanned slowly in a
vertical plane over an approxmum one•square-meter area to simulaw the surface of a human torso.
At tight locations inside equipment racks containing cellular transmitters, filters, and combiners,
and near transmission lines, there was not enough space to make whole body measurements.
These locations simply were probed to ascertain the electromagnetic field strength present
Findints
The exposure level pretest at each,survey location was below the sensitivity threshold
of the electromagneOic monitr. Thus, exposure at the site inside the tower fence and equipment
shelter is kw&m 0.17 peRmt of the MPE for controlled environments, the sensitivity threshold
of the insirano of for wnaolled enviromnem At publicly accessible locations, exposure was less
the 0.86 percent of the WE for uncontrolled environments, the sensitivity threshold of the
instrument for uncontrolled environments. Because of the extremely low electromagnetic field
JULES COHEN 6 ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 42
► WASNINGTON. D.C. 20036
Engineering Statement Page 6
Cantoro, North Carolina
strengths, it was not possrble to distinguish cellular signals from ambient electromagnetic noisy
Inside the equipment rack that housed the cellular transmrttem exposure Ievels were found also
to be below the sensitivity threshold of the electromagnetic monitor.
Thexre were 22 cellular Viers installed at the site at the time of the survey.
Taking into accoi transmitter power output. trams mission line loss, and antenna gain, the
effective radiated power of each transmitter is nominally 100 warns. Assuming sirmikaneoas
operation of all transmitters, rnr6mnm effective radiated paw= at the site is 2200 watts Gives
the height above ground level of the transmitting antenna and the directivity of the oraatmistmg
antennas m the vertical pbM the estimated exposure level six feet above grand level at the
tower, base is less than 0.0003 mW/erns, which is equivalent to 0.01 percent of the WE for
controlled environments and O.OS percent of the NeE for uncontrolled environments.
Conchssioa
RFR exposure levels measured on the grcumd and inside die equipment shelter at the
INKA293 site were more than are hundred times less than the protection guides set forth in
ANSI C95.1-1982 and the applicable IPEs set forth in 095.1-1992. It is e»ely hYely that
a more sensitive eiecmoamagaetic monitor would show the exposure levels to be thousands of tinxs
less than the mss estiWWwd by the standards. Further; public access to the site is
restricted, ftx, by a fear enclosing the self-storage complete within which the cello lsr site
located, a4-second by a fence enclosing the tower base,
Absent any chaftes to the man system, routine masta'emeat of
elecnromagruutic field streiigths at the KIVKA293 site would save no purpose other than to prove
well established Im of physics by --munatiaq that no change in the transmission system
JULES COHEN 3 ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING Excma a 43
WAsmixoTON, D.C. 20036
Engineering Statement Page 7
Carrboro, North Carolina
results in no increase in the exposure levels present at the site. Because exposure levels are a
function of effective radiated power, antenna electrical characteristics, and distance between the
antenna and observer, it it quite reasonable to assume that there will be no change in the ground
level exposure as long as there is no change in effective radiated power, antenna type, or antenna
mounting height above ground level. If future measurements at this site are to be made to verify
compliance with the standards,such measurements should oaly be required if maximum eta:: ve
radiated power is increased, a transmitting anterm changed or added, or transmitting an=..nna
height is changed more than six feel The addition or relocation of a receiving antenna should
not require a new field strength survey.
Robert W. Denny, Jr., P.E.
June 13, 1994
DENNY & AssoCIATES, P.G.
' CONSULTING ENamazitS 44
WASHINGTON, DC
ENGINEERING STATEMENT
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH SURVEY
SPRINT CELLULAR COMPANY
STATION KNKA293
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
Electromagnetic field strength measurements were made by the undersigned
at the transmitting site of Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service
station KNKA293. The measurements were made on September 19, 1995, on behalf of
Sprint Cellular Company, licensee of IC1KA293.
Data collected during the survey were evaluated-against two standards
which establish the maximum levels of radio-frequency energy to which humans may
be exposed without known harmful biological effects. The two standards are American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1-1982 and ANSUInstitute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) C95.1-1992. ANSMEE C95.1-1992 is the revision of
C95.1.1982. The protection guide levels specified in ANSI C95.1-1982 have been
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission as the acceptable levels of human
exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR). The FCC currently is considering
adoption of the.revised standard and most likely will do so when the docket comes up
for consideration. By evaluating the survey data against both the existing and revised
standards,there should be no need to repeat the survey effort at such time as the FCC
adopts the revised standard.
Survey measurements were made at representative locations on the ground
at the cell site, both inside and outside the tower fence, and inside the equipment
shelter. The exposure level at each location surveyed was below the sensitivity
DENNY & ASSOC1ATEs, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, OC 45
Engineering Statement Page 2
ENKA293,Carrboro, North Carolina
threshold of the measurement instrument and well below the exposure limits
established by either standard. Further discussion of the survey follows.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The surveyed cellular site is located at 515 South Greensboro Street,
Carrboro, Orange County, North Carolina. The geographic coordinates of the site,
referenced to the 1983 North American Datum, are: 35° 54' 09" North Latitude, 79° 04'
11" West Longitude. A 180-foot self-supporting tower has been erected at the site to
support the KNKA293 base station antennas. Two, Decibel Products, type D13810,
transmitting antennas are mounted at the top of the tower with center lines 187 feet
above ground level (AGL). Six other antennas are mounted near the top of the tower,
but these antennas are for receiving only. Access to the tower is restricted to
authorized personnel by a fence with a lockable gate. A sketch of the cell site is shown
in Figure 1 of this statement.
EXPOSURE STANDARDS
As stated earlier,analysis of the data collected in this survey is based on two
standards for human exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: ANSI C95.1-
1982, the currently adopted FCC standard, and ANSIME C95.1-1992, the revision
of ANSI C95.1-1982. The FCC is in the process of changing its rules to incorporate the
revised standard, ANSDUEE C95.1-1992, in place of the current standard, ANSI
C95.1-1981 It is expected that the FCC will incorporate the revised standard into its
rules with few changes.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.G. 46
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, OC
Engineering Statement Page 3
I NKA293, Carrboro, North Carolina
ANSI C95.1-1982 specifies maximum exposure in terms of frequency-
dependent protection guides. The protection guides are concerned with total whole.
body absorption of radio-frequency energy over any 0.1-hour period. All of the radio-
frequency sources at the E NKA293 cellular site are in the 869 to 894 megahertz(MHz)
frequency range. The protection guide level for this frequency range corresponds to an
average equivalent plane wave power density that may be calculated using the formula
S= f
300
where f is frequency in megahertz and S is power density in milliwatts per square
centimeter(mW/cm). Given this relationship, the most restrictive exposure guide level
would occur at 869 MHz, the lowest possible operating frequency for cellular base
stations. Applying this frequency to the formula yields a protection guide level of
2.9 mW/cm2.
The revised standard,C95.1-1992,also specifies maximum exposure in terms
of a frequency-dependent maximum level, but, instead of a protection guide, this level
is referred to as a maximum permissible exposure WE) level. The new standard also
categorizes exposure environments as controlled or uncontrolled. The 1982 standard
did not distinguish between exposure environments. Under C95.1-1992, controlled
environmenh are locations where there is exposure that may be incurred by persons
who are aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of employment, by other
cognizant persons,or as the incidental result of transient passage through areas where
analysis shows the exposure levels may be above the MPEs for uncontrolled
environments but less than the MPEs for controlled environments. The MPE for
controlled environments under the 1992 standard for emissions in the 300 to 3000 MHz
DENNY 81 ASSOCIATES, P.G. '
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 47
WASHINGTON, OC
Engineering Statement - Page 4
KNKA293, Carrboro, North Carolina
frequency range is the same as the 1982 protection guide level and, therefore, may be
calculated using the formula given above. The averaging time for controlled
environment exposures is also 0.1 hour as with the 1982 standard. Thus, in this case,
the MPE for controlled environments would be the same as the protection guide level,
2.9 mW/cmz. The base of the KNKA293 tower, which is enclosed by a fence, is an
example of a controlled environment. Locations inside the KNKA293 equipment
shelter also are examples of a controlled environment.
Uncontrolled environments are locations where there is exposure of
individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure. A residential area
would be an example of an uncontrolled environment. The MPE for uncontrolled
environments for emissions in the 300 to 3000 MHz frequency range may be calculated
using the formula
S= f
1500
where, as before, f is the frequency in megahertz, and S is power density in mW/cm2.
While there are some exceptions, in general, the MPEs for uncontrolled environments
are one-fifth the MPEs for controlled environments, and the averaging times for
uncontrolled environments are five time's longer than for controlled environments. As
was the cage with the protection guide level and the MPE for controlled environments,
the most reanctive MPE for uncontrolled environments occurs at 869 MHz. Applying
this frequency to the formula yields an MPE for uncontrolled environments of
0.58 MW/cm=.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 48
WASHINGTON, DC
Engineering Statement Page 5
IC KA293, Carrboro, North Carolina
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE
Electromagnetic field strength measurements were made using a Narda,
model 8718,serial number 01155,radio-frequency electromagnetic field strength survey
meter. The model 8722B, serial number 13012, broadband electric field probe was used
for all electric field measurements. The frequency response of the mode18722B probe
is shaped to conform to the 1992 ANSI/IEEE exposure standard. Configured with this
conformal probe, the survey meter indicates exposure level as a percent of the MPE for
controlled environments.
Configured with the model 8722B conformal electric field probe, the survey
meter exhibits a sensitivity threshold of 0.15 percent of the MPE for controlled
environments. Because of the frequencies in use at the site and the distances from the
radiation sources being measured, the electric field component of radiation alone was
sufficient to define exposure, and a full course of magnetic field measurements was
deemed unnecessary. However,a model 8731, serial number 02030, isotropic probe was
used for spot magnetic field measurements. The electromagnetic monitor was
calibrated in August 1995.
Measurement data were recorded by the electromagnetic monitor for later
analysis. The monitor was programmed to sample the measured exposure level once
each second. Data were logged for 30-second sample periods and, at the end of each
sample period,the average exposure encountered over the course of the sample period
would have been c akulated had the exposure levels been above the sensitivity threshold
of the instrument. Then, the calculated average and measured minimum and
maximum power density levels for each sample period would have been stored in the
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 49 2
CONSULTING ENGINEERS +
WASHINGTON, OC
Engineering Statement Page 6
EM<AM-%Carrboro, North Carolina
data logger memory for later analysis. The extremely low maximum exposure levels
present at the site made rigorous analysis of the measurement data unnecessary.
On the ground and inside the equipment shelter, the probe was scanned
slowly in a vertical plane over an approximate one-square-meter area to simulate the
surface of a human torso. At tight locations inside equipment racks containing cellular
transmitters,filters, and combiners, and near transmission lines, there was not enough
space to make whole body measurements. These locations simply were probed to
ascertain the electromagnetic field strength present.
FINDINGS
The exposure level present at each survey location was below the sensitivity
threshold of the electromagnetic monitor. Measurements made inside the fenced area
were repeated outside the fence with similar results. Thus,exposure at the site inside
the tower fence and equipment shelter is less than 0.15 percent of the MPE for
controlled environments, the sensitivity threshold of the instrument for controlled
environments. At publicly accessible locations outside the fence,exposure was less the
0.75 percent of the MPE for uncontrolled environments, the sensitivity threshold of the
instrument for. uncontrolled environments. Because of the extremely low
electromagnetic field strengths, it was not possible to distinguish cellular signals from
ambient electromagnetic noise. Inside the equipment rack that housed the cellular
transmittsies, exposure levels were found also to be below the sensitivity threshold of
the electromagnetic monitor.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 50
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC
Engineering Statement Page 7
KNKA293, Carrboro, North Carolina
There were 22 cellular transmitters installed at the site at the time of the
survey. Taking into account transmitter power output, transmission line loss, and
antenna gain, the effective radiated power of each transmitter is nominally 100 watts.
Assuming simultaneous operation of all transmitters, maximum effective radiated
power at the site is 2200 watts. Given the height above ground level of the transmitting
antennas and the directivity of the transmitting antennas in the vertical plane, the
estimated exposure level six feet above ground level at the tower base is less than
0.0003 mW/cm?, which is equivalent to 0.01 percent of the MPE for controlled
environments and 0.05 percent of the MPE for uncontrolled environments.
CONCLUSION
RFR exposure levels measured on the ground and inside the equipment
shelter at the ENKA293 site continue to be more than one hundred times less than the
protection guides set forth-in ANSI C95.1.1982 and the applicable MPEs set forth in
C95.1-1992. It is extremely likely that a more sensitive electromagnetic monitor would
show the exposure levels to be thousands of times less than the maximums established
by the standards. Further, public access to the site is restricted: first, by a fence
enclosing the self-storage complex within which the cellular site located, and, second,
by a fence enclosing the tower base.
Absent any changes to the transmission system, routine measurement of
electromagnetic field strengths at the Ba*JI 293 site serves no purpose other than to
prove well-established laws of physics by demonstrating that no change in the
transmission system results in no increase in the exposure levels present at the site.
Because exposure levels are a function of effective radiated power, antenna electrical
characteristics, and distance between the antenna and observer, it is quite reasonable
DENNY 91 ASSOCIATES, P.C. ,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 51
WASHINGTON, DC
Engineering Statement Page 8
KNKA293,Carrboro, North Carolina
to assume that there will be no change in the ground level exposure as long as there is
no change in effective radiated power, antenna type, or antenna mounting height above
ground level. If future measurements at this site are to be made to verify compliance
with the standards, such measurements should be required only if maximum effective
radiated power is increased,a transmitting antenna changed or added,or transmitting
antenna height is changed more than six feet. The addition or relocation of a receiving
antenna should not require a new field strength survey.
Robert W. Denny,Jr.,P.E.
November 8, 1995
52
v
JUNE 1 5
AMERICAN �' •1
PLANNING
QVews.O,,A,,
Local Planning Issues in end of last year.That. in turn,has expanded the number of
Satin Cellular Towers cellular transmission sites to 17,920 last December from just
9 384 a decade earlier.
In response to both the increasing demand for mobile
By Miche4 Gregory communication options and a very aggressive lobbying effort by
the industry,the FCC opened another portion of the airwaves for
In coming months,communities may lose the right to regulate the industry use.On March 14, the agency completed the biggest
siting of cellular telephone cowers,just as that industry is emerging auction in U.S.history,lasting three months and costing
as a major player in the larger telecommunications industry.The telecommunications carriers S7 billion.The airwave rights were
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association(CTIA)filed a divided geographically into 99 licenses that went to commercial
petition with the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) mobile radio service(CMRS)carriers nationwide.The licenses
last December that asks for federal preemption of local zoning were awarded co the highest bidder:among a combination of
powers over cellular transmission fialines-This issue of Zoning older and newly formed companies.The FCC will auction more
New aims to acquaint loaf planners with the impacts,real and licenses lacer this year to accommodate private mobile radio
perceived,of cellular towers.Local siting regulations,staff reports, service(PMRS)carriers,which serve freight transporters,public
and telecommunications plans from 15 jurisdictions were reviewed safety entities,citizens band radio,and ham operators.The newly
to provide a summary of siting consideracioas. licensed carriers are already acquiring sites for towns and their
Planners should understand that some jurisdictions regulate accompanying equipment buildings.Where a market exists for
cellular cowers specifically,while others have regulations that cellular communications,local government must be prepared to
apply to"communication cowers"generally.Wherever possible, deal with siting issue.
we have tried to cull examples of regulatory techniques specific Canror csllrrlar The industry's wth
to cellular technology.These varying degrees of specificity also ` has outpaced many local
tourer a so&tion so
exist in the regulations of many state communications and �-aessbstic io>ss>r �� governments'ability co
public utilities agencies.Planners should learn their state's _
zoning _ understand the impacts of
bureaucratic structure and its definition of communication s�~ cellular cowers and.
cowers before drafting local regulations. therefore,to properly sire
Represenacives of the cellular industry were also consulted and regulate them.The
for this arcicic In contrast to the cone of the CTIA petition, situation is further
many expressed an eagerness to work with APA and local complicated when residents,
communities to educate piannea and citizens toward the expressing alum over the
development of safe,fair,and informed regulations. aesthetic and reported
WNW Mlsta health-related effects of
ry cellular cowers,prompt
In 1974,the FCC expanded the radio spectrum available to the hasty,reactionary
public in order w make_room for budding cellular telecommu- SAW regulation.To avoid writing
nicacions technology.Through the mid-1980s.the industry bad law,some communities
worked to develop higher-quality transmission devices.Cellular have instituted siting
technology was first marketed W consumem in the form of the 'r moratoriums until they have
car phone. It presented local government with the phenomena ample opportunity to
of cellular telephone anreno and the towers on which obey are _+ 'S a resarch and formulate
mounted—cowers that bad to be erected somewhere in the - regulations that are fair to
community. Unlike gmund-wired telecommunications,cellular both the community and
technology made it pombk for a alkr to travel while commu- the industry.
nicating with someone at a conventional telephone or with Both trends have put
another mobile user.Cellular technology,explained in greater carriers on the offensive.
detail below,operates on a fixed number of channels chat shah Thwarted by local"learning
the same radio waves.As a mobile user passes through"cells" curves"and"regulatory
chat parcel the landscape into a transmitting grid,the caller's barriers"in their efforts to break into new markets,they have
connection is"patched"from one cell antenna to the next. sought powerSal remedies.The CTIA petition argues that the
Twenty years later,personal communication services(PCS) supremacy clause(section 332)of the 1934 Federal
have expanded to include hand-held portable phones and Communications Act authorizes preemption of state and local
paging systems,and they are everywhere.A survey in the regulation of cellular tower siting.APA.in a letter to the FCC.
January 1993 issue of Consumes Reports reported that cellular expressed opposition to such preemption.In March,executive
technology added an average of 7,300 users per day in 1992, director Michael Barker cold the FCC that local communities
bringing the U.S. total to about 10 million.Those numbers and planners are in the best position to balance their concerns
have continued to grow, reaching more than 24 million by the with the needs of the cellular industry.The National
53
• � n
Association of Telecommunications Officers and and lattice,or self-support cowers,which have three or four
Administrators, the U.S.Conference of Mayors,the National sides of open-framed steel supports.Some cellular antennas can
League of Cicies,and the National Association of Counties have occupy space on ocher types of communication cowers when the
filed similar objections. engineering is feasible.This is known'as using a donor site to
troubleshoot a small gap or dead spot within the grid.A micro-
Nature of the Tedwelegr cell or repeater facility is installed on a preexisting cower to
Low-power mobile radio communication,also known as cellular ensure char transmissions within chic arcs are dear.antennas
communication,is accomplished by linking a wireless network can also be placed on rooftops and other building features if the
of radio wave transmitting devices(portable phones,pagers,or building's height an accommodate their service area In
car phones) co the conventional ground-wired communications addition,antennas have been mounted on silos,water tanks,
system(telephone lines) through a series of short-range, windmills,and smokestacks.As cellular use proliferates and the
contiguous cells that are part of an evolving cell grid. technology improves, the creed coward shorter cowers and less
For example,a portable phone transmits a signal co the obtrusive mounting fixtures is likely to prevail.
nearest cellular antenna.The all is relayed From the antenna to Antennas are of three types:omnidirectional,directional, and
the nearest land-based telephone line or microwave dish,and microwave. Omnidirectional antennas,also called whip
then to a central switching computer.From chere..che all is antennas,serve a 360-degree area. Directional antennas,also
sent to its destination,either a land-based telephone via the known as panel antennas or rectangular antennas,are used co
land-based line or another mobile communication device via the achieve transmission or reception in a specific direction.
closest cellular antenna. Microwave antennas are used to link different types of
Calls an originate or be received from a wireless source telecommunications facilities,such as when a portable phone
because antennas share a fixed number of frequencies across the user calls a conventional telephone number.
cellular grid.In other words,while a caller may dial her desrina-
cion number from within the radius of one cell antenna,she may Screening, Landscaping, and setbacks
travel into the radius of another during the all.The all proceeds The most common objection to cellular cowers and antennas is
uninterrupted as the transmission is"parched"from one antenna their aesthetic impact. Residents,many of whom use the
to the next.While the caller is moving,the cellular antennas ate technology,do not want to see else cowers cluttering their
automatically locating an unoccupied frequency on the next landscape or degrading property values.Planner and industry
antenna,thus enabling continued transmission. professionals have gone to great lengths to screen,conceal,and
When a caller cannot successfully place or maintain a all, sec back cowers and their associated buildings.All the
either he is out of range or the nearest antenna is ac full ordinances reviewed contain some sort of requirement for
capacity.Cellular cower technology differs from satellite, maintaining existing vegetation or installing landscaping for the
microwave,or land-based communications in that it is based on purpose of screening the base of the cower and the storage
a network of short-range cell sites with a fixed capacity.If the building.Towers an also be camouflaged to blend with the
cells are nor linked by cellular towers,microwave dishes,or surrounding environment through the use of color,marerials,
ground-wired cowers,aansmission will fail.Similarly,if a cell is and design.For instance,Jefferson Parish,Louisiana,requires
crowded by coo many users,is must be"sp lit"into two cells, that all cellular towers be disguised as trees:
each having its own radius:thus,only the cellular antennas of 1.The entire facility must be aesthetically and architecturally
separate carriers an share space on the same cower.Ic is compatible with its environment.The use of residentially
physically impossible for a single curia to deliver service compatible materials such as wood.brick or stucco is
successfully if its antennas are not dispersed. required for associated support buildings,which shall be
Most local regulations require that all technically available designed to architecturally match the cmerior of residential
space on existing towers within the jurisdiction be used befoce structures within the neighborhood.In no case will meal
new towers are erected.In ocher words.cellular carriers must ezteriors be allowed for accessory buildinp
lease space to ocher curies on their tow the cellular industry 2.The rower ieelf must be of such design and uh-an
considers this leasing arrangement to be a less-than-idd architectural material so that it is camouflaged to resemble a
solution.As the d--ad for cellular cckw--muniadons woody tree with a single sunk and branches on its upper part-
increases,cells in a given area must be subdivided,or additional
carriers must be permined to operate there.The end result is the Setback distances can be guided by aesthetic and safety
need for more towam concerns.Most are expressed as a percentage of the cower
height.Ike Pensacola.Florida.ordinance,the setback serves a
Towers and Antennas primly aesthetic purpose:
Towers may need to range in height from SO to 200 fees so char (Tlhe distance between the base of the communications cowers
antennas an overcome the challenge posed to communications and any residential zoning district or any historical or
by local topography.The required height is usually proportional to architecturally significant building must equal 20 percent of the
a combination of the distance antennas an cover and the demand cower height.
within their radius:Higher towers geaersily cover a larger
geographic area.but have a lower service demand.and are known Safety-oriented setbacks establish a dear zone for falling
as coverage sites.Shorter towers.known as capacity sites,cover cower debris or the worst-case scenario,the cowei s collapse.
smaller areas with a more concentrated demand.Tower height an Falling zones for towers vary with their design.At most,they
also vary according to engineering requirements for a specific site will collapse to a distance equal to their full height,bur many
or the technical capabilities of the antennas being mounted. are designed to collapse first toward their base.The Oldham
In addition to dedicated,fzee-sranding cellular cowers County,Kentucky,setback provisions are designed with falling
(monopoles), there are guyed cowers(anchored with guy wires) zones in mind:
2
54
y Towers 100 feet or more in height shall be located on the lot so watts, the typical cell site emits 100 watts of power or less,
that the distance from the base of the rower to any adjoining sometimes as little as 10 in urban areas.
property line or supporting structure of another cower is a It should be noted chat some ordinances,like Multnomah
minimum of 100 percent of the proposed cower height.No County's,include provisions that automatically apply more
variance shall be granted from this minimum setback stringent standards if chose are ever issued by the federal
requirement.Towers tors than 100 feet in height that cannot government. For more information about the relationship of
satisfy this l00 percent setback requitement may be approved cellular communications to EMFs,planners may consult the
by the board,provided that the applicant present a certification
From a registered engineer char the cower will withstand winds Electromagnetic Energy Association, 1255 23rd Sc..NW,
of 100 miles per hour. Washington, DC 20037; 202452-1070. EEA is a nonprofit
group representing corporations and individuals associated with
Some communities also determine setbacks by what are industries char use non-ionizing EMFs.
considered acceptable levels of electromagnetic radiation.
Oldham County;Jefferson County,Colorado; Multnomah For More Information
County,Oregon;and King County,Washington,all have
specific provisions related to the electromagnetic fields(Elv(Fs) on EMFs .
generated by the new cower.TheJefferson County ordinance
requires a complete non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation t
(NIER) analysis with every cowir application. o assist local governments in developing
regtjfations for siting cellular towers,the American
1104fromagn "d Holds atrVW Standards Institute has published the
The health risks associated with EMFs have been the second of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
test source of community opposition to the siting of cellular Engineers in IEEE Sandard for Safety Levels with Respect
greatest ty PP°u to Hrunant Exposure to Radio Frequency Elecoomagrretic
phone cowers for reasons related to bock perwaai safety and the : ...fiekk 3Az to 300 CHI, 1992(ANSUIEEE C.9S.1.1992
perceived impact on property values.EMFs are divided into two [Redesit nation as ANSIAEEE C95.1-19911).Anod+er
basic categories.Ionizing radiation includes X-rays and gamma useful ANSI document is Recommended Pracdce for the
rays.Non-ionizing radiation, the category to which cellular Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Elecaomagnedc
communication devices,radio and TV broadcasting antennas, fields-41'and Microwave IANSOEEE 095.3-1992).
and satellite stations belong,is considered less powerful because Order from American National Standards Institute, 1 t
it does not strip the electrons from atoms and molecules to form W.42nd Sft New York,NY 10036;212-42-4900.Also
highly reactive particles known as ions.Instead,it harnesses see the IEEE position statement,'Human Exposure to
Portable and Mobile Tele-
phones gem-crated from the vibration of molecules to convey Radiofrequency Fields fat phones and Odw Corset-ic>aara Devim 1992.'
information or,in the case of microwave ovens or electric T}gtb it predates the advert of cellular communi-
blankets,to trace hear. cations,a good satuce for general informiaw on the
Since 1979,scientists have conducted more than 1,000 regulation of radio and television Owen is PAS Report
studies,some of which have linked non-ionizing 0384,Regulating Radio and TV Towers by Beverly
electromagnetic field sources to higher incidences of sneer Sookin and Larry Epstein(Chicago.American Planning
among children living in dose proximity to an EMF source. Association, 1984).For more inkmtation on EMFs in
However,these studies,often cited in opposition to the siting of I,conwIt PAS Report 043S,El rc
power lines and communication antennas,have also been found arsd Land-Use Cartrols,by 0
inconclusive because they were unable to isolate th6r findings Contneily( hi
to a single EMF source.This is because most homes are1)'
equipped with a variety of modern appliances that generate -392
varying EMF levels.No scientific study has shown a specific
correlation between cancer and the NIER levels genaaud BY a
cellular communication facility or device.Likewise.no scientific
research has proven them m be completely safe.
The cellular radio sysati operates in the 800-900 megahera
(MHz) ultra high frequwy bs♦ad,formerly used for UHF 01ber Stunaatrd Previslom
television broadcastin&Guiendy duce are no general federal Colecadea In order to minimize cower proliferation,moss
guidelines for what is asmidered aocepable public exposure to communities require applicants co exhaust all possible avenues
radio-frequency-emitted radiation.The U.S.Environmental for sharing space on existing cowers,usually in a section of the
Protection Agency is developing stash sandards,but,in the ordinance on colocadon or shared use.Factors that determine
meantime,many communities are relying on the American feasibility include available space on existing towers,the cower
National Standards Institute fat prefimionally capable radio owners ability to lease space,the towers structural capacity,
frequency emissions standards for all types of communication radio frequency interference,geographic service area
cowers(set box on page 3). Many of the ordinances we reviewed requirements,mechanical or electrical incompatibilities.the
incorporate the ANSI standards into their review protest and comparative costs of caloacion and new construction-and any
approval requirements.Though coo detailed to list here,they FCC limitations on rower sharing.
present acceptable levels of NIER exposures from cowers Many ordinances name the regional or state communications
operating at various frequencies. division responsible for tracking the availability of suitable
Of all transmitting facilities,cellular cowers typically operate sharing span on towers.iciest regulations should bed of rids
at the lowest power levels.While a television tower emits up to in tandem with such agencies.In Palm&etch CavtU� ——y
5 million watts,and commercial radio stations up to 100,000 cower applicants must send a certified mail announcement to all
3
55
ocher tower users in the area,slicing their siting needs and/or Where the sice abuts or has access to a collector and local street. +
sharing capabilities in an effort to encourage tower sharing. access for maintenance vehicles shall be exclusively by mans of
Applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a cower unless the collector street.
mechanical,structural.or regulatory factors prevent them from Parking requirements generally do not apply to cellular
sharing. In ocher words.competing carriers cannot lock each cowers. For chose communities chat require parking, the
other our of territory.The ordinances for Jefferson County. L- provision applies to an overall"communication cower facility'
Oldham Counry_Multnomah Counry,and Palm Bach.County ordinance in which spaces are required only when the
offer deiailed examples of sharing provisions and leasing terms. equipment building is staffed.
Sh7wrwd inagriry and Ingwrtion.Most ordinances require Lighting and Sircurit]i Lighting for communication cowers is
chat any new or modified cowers be certified by an engineer accord- required when the rower is tall enough to concern the Federal
ing to structural standards for antennas offered by either the Elec- Aviation Administration(FAA).Jefferson Parish acknowledges
Ironic Industries Association or the Telecommunication Industry FAA regulations and the privacy of neighboring property owners-
Association. Inspection schedules seem co vary widely according to When lighting is required and is permitted by the Federal
the type of tower,as in this provision from Jupiter,Florida- Aviation Administration or other federal or stacc authority, it
Inspections—The town council may require periodic inspections shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding
of communication cowers to ensure structural inc wry•Such residential property.
inipeaiotu may be required as follows.a)monopole towers—at Others,in more urban areas,may require full review and
least once every 10 years:b)sdf-support towers—at last once certification of the cower application by their local airport
every five years;c)guyed cowers—at least once every thee years. authority.This provision is from Palm Beach County-
Inspections shall be conducted by an engineer licensed by the
state of Florida.The results of such inspections shall be provided Prior to the site plan certification.the applicant shall provide
to the director of community development.Based upon results of documesicatim than the proposed communication cower has been
an inspection.the town council may require repair or removal of reviewed and is not determined m be a hazard by the FAA...
a communication rower. (via)the Paler Beach County Department of Airports....The
PBCDOA shall review the communication cower applicatioa to
Egrsipynent Bstid'ddings and Los Sint Cellular towers are often determine if it is a hared to any FAA Right paths.
accompanied by a small,usually unstaffed storage building chic
houses transmitting equipment.Some ordinances treat them as Some ordinances also require fencing or signsge.Jupiter
accessory uses or structures,while others specifically stare that requires a six-foot safety fence with a locked gate. If high voltage
they are not.Most require some setback from adjoining is necessary,signs must be posted every 20 feet,saying.
property lines;the required setback is usually proportional to "Danger—High Voltage."The operator must also post"No
the seas density.Oldham County seeks co discourage more Trespassing"signs.
incense use of the sice: Abandon»east Most ordinances also restrict the time in
('I'jhese facilities may nor include offices,long-term vehicle which an unused tower may stand w between six and 18
storage,ocher outdoor storage,or broadcast studios.except for months,with some requiring the aswer applicant to cover the
emergency purposes,or other uses that are not needed to send demolition costs.
or receive transmissions. AppGeation Requirements Perhaps the most telling section
of any ordinance is its application requirements.Although some
Lot sizes for cellular sites are usually the minimum for the communities do not list these separately,doing so lets the
district in which they will be built. applicant know a mictly what must be provided and indicates
Maintenance and Parking A few ordinances include how much the community knows about the impacts of cellular
standards for facility maintenance and parking.The phone cower siting.These requirements should be dearly stated
Multnomah County ordinance has the most cuensive treatment and not impossible to fulfill.Jeffis n County offers an
of maintenance impacts: _ excellent etplanation of what it iequus Fin any cower
Equipment ac a mnuainion facility shall be wto�o to due— - applicant.and its provisions demonscace serious research by the
greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and eongeeuisim The planning department and other local agencies.Rev►ew of cliis
applicant shall describe mddpsoed mainansncr needs. ordinance and its accom a 'ng*Low Power Mobile Radio^
including frequency of iies+ioe,pawaad need&equipment mmuuniations Use Plan Addendum"is recommended
needs.and traffic,noiw of safey impeeo of such maintawce. fi4r-aayoiie dealing with celGllar siting aiiia.
M�Niu J !6� t>>Nll�ay�
Zeman New is a mom:*nan+rims r p.r+1.w by the Americas Planning A..eeiarion- Any cellular carrier seeking to locate in a community is prepared
Subscriptions an available fsr S45(U.&)a"1174(fsesign). to deal with siting conttove sieL Some corporations have even
Michad S.Barker.Executive Director.Frank S.Ste Deputy Executive Diracaer gone so far at to ay for a third- consultant to
William&Klein.Ditecter of Reaeneh. P PAY
Zeaias New is produced at APA.Jim Schwab.Editor Midtad Barse m.Dan Biwa.Fay review anything they have helped draft.These firms target sites
Dolniclt.Michelle ccegmy.Sanity Jew.Bads McCuim Marra Moms.Chris smi& for acquisition based on their topographic efficiency,their
Reporters Cradle Chain.Ass==Edison:rim Baron.OmW are°naattiaL accessibility by road.the availability of electric power and land-
Copyright 01"1 by American Planning Association.1313 E 60th c.,Chicago,I based telephone lines.their leasability,prectitting vegetation and
60637.The American Planning Association hiss headquarters offices is 1"6 zoning.compatibility with adjacent
Massachusetts Ave..N.W..Washington.DC 20036_ screening potential.exstsng rung, pa ty )
All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilital in any Land uses+and their ability co transmit to the largest area.
form or by any mearss.electronic or machanicaL including photesarrung.recording. If loaf governments show that they an meet most of these
or by any information storage and retrieval system.without permission in writing needs while preserving their community's aesthetic integrity.
from the American Manning Association. health,and safely. they should be able to avert federal
Printed on recycled paper.including W-70%recycled fiber
and 10%poutonsum4r waste ® preemption of their local rights and responsibilities.
4
• DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 5/28/96 56
6
1 west and Mill House Road to the east and is located at the north intersection of these two roads. The
2 28.46 acre tract is currently zoned NC-2. The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 4.8 acres of the
3 bad to RB (Rural Buffer).
4 Commissioner Gordon asked why they want the rezoning and Eddie IGrk said that the
5 applicant has indicted his intention to apply for a Class B Special Use Permit for a communications tower.
6 However, the staff has not received an application.
7
8 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
9 JERRY EATMAN spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that this application is
10 consistent in all respects with the code. Mr. Tapp has been approach by a company to buy this property for
11 a communication tower, though the project is not guaranteed.
12 NEAL TAPP said thatthis property is in the woods and this use would cause the property to
13 remain wooded and the tower would not be seen from the road.
14 EVE OLIVE, President of the Emerson Waldorf School, which is close to this area, said that if
15 there is going to be a telecommunications tower on this property, she is concerned about the health impact
16 on the children. She stated that there has been a lot of evidence concerning the high incidence of leukemia
17 in children living near power lines. She asked that this health impact be stated in the Zoning Ordinance and
18 that the regulations limit the proximity of radio towers to areas where there are large numbers of younger
19 children.
20
21 County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that the County Commissioners have a
22 responsibility to look at all the possible uses in making their decision on a rezoning. The Board would be
23 endorsing these uses if they approve the rezoning regiuest
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to
25 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
26 Commissioners no sooner than August 5, 1996.
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 (b) Z-3-96 Buckhom Road Economic Development District Expansion
30 (HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b)
31
32 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
33 (a) Telecommunication Towers
34 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
35 2) Article 8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and
36 Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use)
37 31-Article 8.8.178 Telecommunication Towers (Special Use Permit requirements)
38 4) Article 8.3.1 Principal Uses
39 _ 5) Article 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers
40 (new)
41 Plainer Mary Wos presented the information for this item. She summarized her response to
42 the concerns herd at the November 27, 1995 public hearing. She outlined the changes in this proposal
43 which are listed in the agenda abstract.
44 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis said that all the changes with
45 the exception of the notice to citizens are less stringent She clarified some of the new language used in
46 the proposed changes.
47 In-answer to a question from Chair Carey about a study showing adverse health impacts from
48 communication towers, Mary Wipis said that everything she has read indicates that two is no identifiable
49 health risk associated with communication towers. She will provide documentation to the County
50 Commissioners.
51 County Attorney Goof Gledhill stated that he feels that the 19% Cable Communications Act
52 takes the County Commissioners out of the business of making a decision based on safety issues
53 concerning communication towers. Congress made the decision that they were safe. He will provide
54 information to the Board on this issue.
DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 5/28/96 51
7
1 Karen Barrows asked about the minimum setback and Mary Willis said that the full setback of
2 100%will be required. However, if the adjacent property owner did not object to a lesser setback, that
3 could be approved. This provides for flexibility.
4 Renee Price noted that there have been studies about health impacts from communication
5 towers and that she is also concerned about this issue.
8 S.A.M. Brooks asked about the setbacks for the adjoining property owners and noted that it
7 would be difficult to know the impact on adjoining property until after the tower is built Mary Willis indicated
8 that they do have photographs which help in determining what impact towers of varying heights would have
9 on adjoining property.
10 In answer to a question from Margaret Brown, Mary Willis said that the 500 foot notice is from
11 the boundaries of the property on which the tower would be located.
12
13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
14
15 EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication
18 towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations.
17 ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company,
18 which used to be Sprint Cellular, made reference to several sections and made comments.
19
20 (1) 8.8.17a.1 requires"a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200
21 feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 1/4 mile. He has no problems with
22 providing any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information
23 on towers outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the
24 number of towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range.
25 (2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all
26 existing towers in the search range and assess whether the existing tower could be structurally
27 strengthened or whether the antennas'transmitters and related equipmerrt could be protected from
28 electromagnetic interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the
29 existing tower." He said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want
30 it only if it is relevant. For example, if a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a
31 commercially reasonable rate, it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are
32 fairly detailed and expensive engineer studies.
33 (3) 6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance- Principal Uses-to his knowledge, this is the only
34 County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision
35 Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation.
36
37 With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no
38 less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property
39 owners. An easement is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased.
40
41 BARMY JACOBS, Caretaker of Moorefields in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their
42 efforts in r+egulaftthese towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal
43 with a request ors No of their wager tanks, which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the
44 requirements for"Unreasonable Interference with View"'. He suggested that the wording "significant
45 adverse impact' be used instead of"Unreasonable". He suggested that under the "Special Use Permit
46 Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property
47 may not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration
48 under a Special Use Permit The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is
49 maintained is subjective. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help
50 visualize how high the tower would be and what it may impact from that height With reference to health
51 effects, they found that there are no proven health risk from communication towers.
52
ORAFT PUBLIC HERING MINUT8ES 5/28/96 58
r
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer
2 this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners
3 no sooner than August 5, 1996.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Commissioner Willhoit asked that the communication companies be requested to provide
7 information on the health impact of communication towers --what the standards are, energy level, and if
8 they are directional or focused and the power level compared to the standard.
9
10 Mr. Benshoff added that what the Communications Act of 1996 does is establish a safety
11 standard. It does not take the County out of the business of regulating it It says that the American National
12 Standards Institute, the Institute that sets safety guidelines for everything from towers to bicycle helmets,
13 has established a safety standard where all this evidence we have been referring to indicates it is safe.
14 What the Telecommunications Act says is that the County must look at this standard and use that standard
15 and so long as the facility meets that standard, that it is the standard applicable for local governments.
16
17
18 ADJOURNMENT
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to
20 June 26, 1996 at a meeting that begins at 7:30p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The items listed below will be
21 heard at that time.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24
25 (b) Article 6.16.8 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations
26
27 (c) Article 8.8.24 Special Uses- Use of Historic Structures
28
29 (d) Economic Development District Design Manual
30 (HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b)
31
32
33 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
34 (a) Section III-C4 action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivisions)
35
36 (b) Section III-D-3(c)action Subsequent to Approval (major subdivisions)
37
38 ADJOURNMENT:
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to
40 June 26, 1996 to begin at 7:30 p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The remaining items will be heard at that
41 time.
42 VOTE: UNANIMCI 8
43
44 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
45
46 Beverly A. Blythe,.Clerk
47.
48
59 '
Brooks asked if the Planning Board could decide the use of lot 16 if no perc site is
found. Cameron responded a significant design change would require
reconsideration.
Price asked when phases III and IV would be submitted. Cameron responded that
Phase III will be the 23 acres that has already been submitted as a concept plan
which is about to expire. If it does expire,it will come in later under the new
provisions. Price continued expressing concern with the road system. Cameron
responded that on the concept plan there were two cul-de-sacs in Phase III. Once all
of the soils work is completed,densities may change and the roads may not be built
as shown on the concept plan. Price was concerned with the amount of traffic being
dumped onto Bacon Road. Cameron noted that due to the soils and stream buffers
there would not be as many as twenty lots.
MOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff.
Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#90 MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 5/28/96
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(1) Telecommunication Towers
Presentation by Mary Willis.
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.
The speakers at the public hearing 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 met
with the telecommunication providers who spoke at the public hearing. The
purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to gain an 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.
One of the major issues raised at the public hearing concerned the potential health
effects of electro-magnetic radiation. The telecommunications Act of 1996(Section
704(B)(iv)and the Federal Communications Commission New National Wireless
Tower Siting Policies (Section 1.1307(b))prohibit denial of a cellular telephone
facility on the basis of health effects if it meets applicable standards issued by the
American National Standards Institute(ANSI).
Studies conducted in 1994 and 1995 for a 360 tower located at 515 South
Greensboro Street,are on file in the Planning Department. Conclusions of the 1995
study state that"exposure levels measured on the ground and inside the equipment
' Y
60
shelter.....continue to be more than one hundred times less than the protection guides
set forth in ANSI C95.1-1982.....It is extremely likely that a more sensitive
electromagnetic monitor would show the exposure levels to be thousands of times
less than the maximums established by the standards...."
Information from the American Planning Association regarding
electromagnetic fields associated with communication facilities is also on file in the
Planning Department. It states that no scientific study has shown a specific
correlation between cancer and cellular communication devices.Likewise,no study
has conclusively proven them to be safe. It has not been possible to obtain
conclusive evidence thus far because most homes are equipped with a variety of
appliances that generate electromagnetic fields,therefore it is difficult to isolate the
effect of any single source.
The amendment presented for public hearing in May 1996 did not include the
previously-proposed requirement that the"tower and antenna will not unreasonable
interfere with the view of or from any historic site,scenic road or major view
corridor". Staff had recommended that the provision be deleted due to the difficulty
in defining or interpreting"unreasonable interference". One citizen who spoke at
the public hearing suggested that instead of being eliminated,the wording be
changed to"significant adverse impact". This recommended change is incorporated
in the proposed text.
It was also suggested that balloons be used to help visualize the height of the tower
in order to determine its visual impact. The proposed application
requirements have been revised to include a provision that a balloon be floated at the
proposed tower location to the maximum height of the tower,and that photographs
be taken from areas such as property lines,and nearby residential areas and
roadways.
One representative from the telecommunication industry spoke at the public hearing.
He expressed opposition to providing detailed information regarding co-location
efforts for towers outside of the search range,as well as to information which may
not be relevant(such as detailed structural information where the tower owner has
refused to lease space on a commercially reasonable basis). Other concerns cited
included tower setbacks,and the application of subdivision requirements to tower
sites. (It has been determined that subdivision approval is not required for leased
tower sites.)
Additional comments concerning industry concerns are included in letters on file in
the Planning Department.
The Planning Staff has incorporated changes in the proposal as presented at the
May 28, 1996 public hearing in response to comments received through the public
hearing process.
1) Add 8.8.17.2(1)(Standards of Evaluation): 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.
2) Add 8.8.17a 1(h)(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...(h)Photographs shall be taken from locations such as property
lines,and/or nearby residential areas,historic sites,roadways,including scenic
e-
61
roads and major view corridors,and other locations as deemed necessary by the
Planning Staff to assess the visual impact of the proposed tower.
3) Revise 8.8.17a1(d)to clarify that tower height is measured from ground level to
the highest part of the support structure.
4) Add 8.8.17a.2(n)to require that compliance with FCC emission standards be
demonstrated by including monitoring through periodic testing of equipment
and submittal of results to the Planning Department.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment,including the
revisions identified. (The proposed amendment and revisions attachments to these
minutes on pages )
Willis introduced Jerry Eatman of North Carolina General Counsel for Sprint
Cellular and Gray Styers as regional counsel for BellSouth, indicating they would
answer questions from the Planning Board. Letters from these representatives are
attachments to these minutes on pages
Mr.Eatman expressed concern regarding information requirement on existing
structures. If the owner of an existing tower refused the request for co-locating,and
would not allow access to the tower,analysis could not be done to provide the
additional information required on the existing tower.
Jobsis asked how Staff would respond to such a concern. Willis responded that if
such was the reason for being unable to provide that information,then
documentation from the applicant would indicate a good faith effort on that part and
would be accepted.
Brooks asked if there could be another approach. Could the County require that
those who have towers on their property give permission for other users for the same
tower. Barrows noted that one of the proposals is that for new towers a letter be
presented stating that the tower will be shared. It was agreed that requirement could
be made of new towers,but not of existing towers.
Jobsis asked how it is determined when a tower is full up to capacity. Willis
responded that would depend upon what the structure would support and whether it
is feasible to do so. Mr.Eatman agreed and noted that the increased need will cause
users to want to make the maximum use of existing facilities/towers. He also noted
that new towers will be designed to make maximum use.
Brooks asked if it would be in the economic best interest of telecommunications
companies to"tap on"to an existing tower and improve it to today's standards.
Mr.Eatman responded that it is almost always to their benefit to locate on an
existing facility. Mr.Styers agreed noting that almost all mobile communicators in
North Carolina have agreements with each other to allow and encourage co-
location.
Barrows asked about W.Styers' concern in his letter regarding co-location on an
existing structure that was not in compliance and having to meet additional setback
requirements. Willis responded that the concern with this issue is increasing the
amount of non-conformity by further reducing the setbacks. If placing equipment on
an existing structure did not make it more non-conforming that would be another
issue. Mr.Styers noted that he felt some allowances should be allowed in such
instances and Willis agreed. Willis continued that wording to the effect that height
62
would not be increased on existing non-conforming structures would address this
concern and Mr.Styers agreed.
Strayhorn asked if a tower is removed whether another tower could be placed on the
site or must the entire process be followed again. Willis responded that the entire
application process would have to be followed to place a tower on a site where one
has been removed. Strayhorn asked what could occur in the fall zone around the
tower. Willis responded that the fall zone had been replaced with specific setback
requirements.
MOTION: Strayhorn moved to approve the proposed amendment as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Article 6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance provisions
relating to home occupations.
The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Article 6.16.6.1 through
6.16.6.4.
Concerns with home occupation provisions have been raised on several occasions in
recent years,particularly in relation to the type of activity allowed and the location
of accessory buildings. Proposed revisions were presented for public hearing in
1992 and 1995,but were not adopted due to the preference of the Board of
Commissioners to deal with the home occupation provisions as a whole,rather than
modifying particular standards.
The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the intent of home occupation regulations,
provide greater emphasis on performance standards,and simplify the text.
The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on June 26, 1996. One
citizen spoke in opposition to the amendment. Concerns expressed included the
restrictions on size and appearance of accessory buildings,and the size limitations
for delivery trucks,particularly for home occupations which would be located on
very large parcels and would have no impacts on the surrounding properties.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment(copy an
attachment to these minutes on pages )
Strayhom expressed concern with treating a small lot the same as a larger lot.
Strayhom continued that many farmers have a welding business located on their
farms and the supplies needed for such a business could not be delivered in/on a
pickup truck. Willis responded that one of the greatest issues regarding home
occupations has been the issue of traffic and the size of vehicles. That is the reason
for trying to address vehicle size in the proposed amendments. Traffic impact has
been one factor to help determine whether an occupation qualifies as a true home
occupation.