HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-16-1995 - X-B ORANGE COUNTY
HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 16, 1995
Action Agenda
Item # X-S
SUBJECT: Report on Telecommunication Towers
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes % No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis
Ext. 2583
SUP Requirements for Towers
Map and List of Existing Towers
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive as information a summary of issues
concerning telecommunications towers and a
recommendation as to how resolution of these issues may
be approached.
BACKGROUND: Concern with the visual impact of an increasing number
of telecommunication towers has been expressed by the
Orange County Board Commissioners, Planning Board,
Board of Adjustment, and Chapel Hill TAC. Other
jurisdictions in the Triangle, including Raleigh and
Durham, are in the process of evaluating regulations
pertaining to towers due to the same concerns.
Existing Orange County Regulations
Telecommunications towers are allowed in all
residential zoning districts and most non-residential
zoning districts upon approval of a Special Use Permit
by the Board of Adjustment.
On October 5, 1994, the Board of Commissioners approved
a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to require applicants
to first attempt to lease antenna space on an existing
tower, and to agree to lease space to other potential
users on the future if a new tower is approved. The
amendment was initiated by the Planning Staff in
response to concerns expressed by the Board of
Adjustment and Planning Board. The intent of the
amendment was to minimize the number of new towers by
2
providing for more than one user. The applicant for a
recently-approved tower site indicated that co-locating
with an existing tower was not technically possible
within the framework of the existing grid system which
provides for coverage. Effective co-location of
facilities would need to be approached from a regional
rather than local standpoint.
Article 8.8. 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which contains
Special Use Permit requirements for communications
towers, is attached.
Existing Towers in Orange County
There are 10 existing cellular towers in Orange
County's planning jurisdiction. Three of the towers,
one in Cheeks Township and two in Little River
Township, were constructed prior to the addition of
zoning regulations. Since 1989, the seven remaining
towers received Special Use Permit approval. In
addition, a Special Use permit for an equipment
building at the base of the WZZU radio tower was
approved.
The attached map shows the location of the existing
cellular towers in Orange County. These towers are
owned by one of three companies (two of which are
mergers) . Sprint/Centel and Cellular One/GTE have each
indicated to Planning Staff that they expect to submit
Special Use Permit applications for two additional
towers within the next year.
In the process of preparing the recent ordinance
amendment to encourage multiple users on towers, the
Planning Staff requested information on the radius of
coverage so that the potential number and location of
future towers could be assessed. The information
which Staff was able to obtain from the companies with
towers in Orange County was of limited value. Signal
strength depends on factors such as topography, and
therefore there is no standard radius for coverage.
The height of the tower or antenna also determines its
range.
Concerns of Other Jurisdictions
The increasing number of telecommunications towers
which results from advances in technology during the
past several years is of concern to other jurisdictions
as well. A Task Force established by the City of
Raleigh recently presented draft recommendations for
regulatory changes to address issues such as tower
height and distances between towers. The Triangle J
Council of Governments is following the progress of the
3
Task Force, and upon the conclusion of work of the Task
Force, will make its results available to the member
jurisdictions. Durham City/County adopted a three-
month moratorium on new towers in March, 1995 for the
purpose of considering possible ordinance amendments to
minimize the number and impact of towers. At the
April Meeting of the Durham - Chapel Hill Work Group,
representatives of the Town of Chapel Hill expressed
concern that a moratorium in one jurisdiction could
result in an adjoining jurisdiction getting more than
its share of tower applications, particularly in areas
near jurisdictional boundaries.
Concern with the increasing number of telecommunication
towers extends beyond the Triangle. The Planning
Advisory Service (PAS) of the American Planning
Association has received requests for information
concerning telecommunications towers from a number of
jurisdictions. Orange County is a subscriber to the
PAS, and as such pays annual dues to receive and
request information on specific topics of interest or
concern. The PAS is in the process of preparing a
report which will provide guidance in developing
regulation pertaining to telecommunications towers, by
taking into account both aesthetic and technological
issues. Publication and distribution of the report is
expected to occur in the Fall of 1995.
Options to Address Concerns
Any further changes to the County's regulations
pertaining to towers would require a Zoning Ordinance
text amendment. The earliest possible date that any
amendments could be presented would be the quarterly
public hearing which is scheduled for August 30, 1995.
The next possible date would be the November 30, 1995
public hearing.
The current regulations include provisions to encourage
multiple users on towers, as a means of slowing the
increase in their numbers. Any additional provisions
would require significant research into tower
technology in order to integrate technological
constraints and aesthetic concerns. Useful and
reliable information which could be used to develop
effective regulations is limited at this time.
Planning Staff has had to rely largely on input from
individual telecommunications companies to gain some
understanding of the details of communication
technology. A more comprehensive and unbiased
understanding of telecommunication tower technology is
needed in order to develop regulations which are
responsive to concerns of both the public and the
telecommunications industry.
4
The Planning Staff recommends that existing regulations
pertaining to towers be reviewed and possibly amended
after the upcoming reports of the Planning Advisory
Service and the City of Raleigh Task Force on
communications towers is made available. These reports
should contain more and better information than would
be obtained and evaluated independently by Planning
Staff within a comparable time period.
RECOIrIIYMATION: The Administration recommends that the Planning Staff
develop proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining
to telecommunication towers as soon as possible after
the upcoming reports of the Planning Advisory Service
Report and City of Raleigh Task Force on
telecommunication towers.
5
EXISTING CELLULAR TOWERS IN ORANGE COUNTY
Number Applicant Tower Comments
Height
1 Sprint/Centel unknown pre-dates zoning of
Little River Township
2 Cellular One/GTE unknown pre-dates zoning of
Little River Township
3 Sprint/Centel unknown pre-dates zoning of
Cheeks Township
4 United Telespectrum 150 tower and equipment
(A-1-85) (Sprint/Centel) building
5 N/A equipment building at
(A-7-89) Carolina Metronet base of existing WZZU
(Cellular One/GTE) radio tower
6 400 tower and two equipment
(A-8-89) buildings
7 Sprint/Centel 300 towers and equipment
(A-2-92) building
8 300
(A-3-92)
9 250
(A-11-93)
10 GTE Mobilenet 180 tower and equipment
(A-1-95) building
11 Dial Call 375 Resubmittal of previous
(A-2-95) request which was denied
and appealed to Superior
Court
I
6 y
Cellular Tower Sites in Orange County
� • 40
Fi I BS S�0 �
3
p-
8 �
.moo
m
-� 10
0
Orange County lI
Planning and
Inspections
Department
5.3.95
i 5 III i
Legend
Municipal Jursdictions A Sprint Cellular/Centel
Cellular One/GTE Dial Call
Towers within Municipal Jursdictions approved and installed after 4.1.94 are not shown on this map.
standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require 7
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.
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.
fl A statement from the applicant indicating the communications tower is
of sufficient size and structure to support the proposed use, plus one
additional use which would not interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
Amended The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application
10-5-94 for approval:
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or otherwise,
for the security of the site, including the provision of a gate at the
access entrance of access roads leading to such facilities.
b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use.
8-20
8
C) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of adjacent
property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces
to public health and safety.
d) Adequate provision has been made to obtain space on an existing
communications tower in the general vicinity.
e) If a communications tower is proposed a statement is to be included
with the Special Use Permit Application indicating the applicant will
lease space on its tower on a commercially reasonable basis provided
the additional use would not interfere with the applicant's use. The
applicant may have the option of leasing space within an equipment
storage area or building or providing separate facilities for this purpose.
f) Adequate provision has been made for the communications tower to
support the proposed use, plus one additional use which would not
interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.18 Buildings for Temporary Use (Class B Special Use)
8.8.18.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
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, 5, 8 and 9 of this ordinance have been
met.
C) The temporary building shall not be used by operations offering drive-
in services.
d) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified
and for the use specified.
8-21