HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-01-1995 - IX-A a
} 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 1, 1995
Action Agenda
Item #_-LX—A
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING-NOVEMBER 27, 1995
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Public Hearing Items Marvin Collins Extension 2592
Draft Public Hearing Notice Mary Willis Extension 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
NOTE: ATTACHMENTS FOR CP-3-95 Hillsborough 732-8181
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE Durham 688-7331
DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY ON OR Mebane 227-2031
BEFORE 10-30-95. Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To approve the advertisement for the November 27, 1995 quarterly
public hearing.
BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for November 27,
1995. A summary of each item proposed for public hearing is provided
below. The proposed legal advertisement, the text of proposed
ordinance amendments, and other background information are attached.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
• CP-2-95 Charles W. and James L. Davis
Charles and James Davis have requested an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to
expand an existing Twenty-Year Transition area to include a 50-
acre portion of their 108-acre parcel which is currently designated
Rural Residential. The property in question is located between NC
86 and Churton Street Extension, adjacent to the Town of
Hillsborough ETJ and the northern boundary of the I-40/NC 86
EDD. The remainder of the parcel is already designated Twenty-
Year Transition.
• CP-3-95 Land Use Plan Amendments
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Land
Use Plan Map include revisions to the following:
Section 2.2 - Natural Environment: To rename the section,
Natural & Cultural Resources, update and expand information
concerning such features, and provide a basis for prioritizing these
features in terms of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas.
t
2
Section 3:3 - Land Use Plan Categories and Section 3.4 -
Locational Criteria: To revise the current Land Use Plan
category, Resource Protection Area, to include updated natural
and cultural resource data, and define the category in terms of
Primary Conservation Area features.
Section 3.5 - Land Use Goals & Draft Policies: To amend Goal
1.1 to include "Resource Protection Areas" with "Public Interest
Districts"as areas to protect from adverse development impacts.
Land Use Plan Map: To designate "Resource Protection Areas"
on the Land Use Plan Map consistent with the above mentioned
sections of the Land Use Element text.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
• Z-7-95 Vernon P. and Barbara S. Davis
Vernon and Barbara Davis have requested that a 4.67-acre
portion of a 10.01-acre lot be rezoned from AR Agricultural
Residential to AS Agricultural Services. The property is located
at the southeast corner of NC 54 and White Cross Road.
• Z-8-95 Jones Concrete
The rezoning of 1.54 acres owned by Henry Ernest Jones from
AR Agricultural Residential to EC-5 Existing Commercial is
proposed to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. The property is
located on the west side of NC 86 about 2100 feet north of Carr
Store Road. Use of the property for a concrete business existed at
the time of the initial zoning of Cedar Grove Township on January
1, 1994. The error was discovered when the property owner
requested a building permit to replace a commercial structure
destroyed by fire.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS
• SUP(A)-1-95 Reba and Roses
Laura Baldwin has requested a Class A Special Use Permit for
Non-Residential Use/Mixed Use of a Historic Structure to operate
a gift shop within an existing structure previously used for farm
use. The property is located on the west side of Baldwin Road,
north of St. Mary's Road. The site was identified in 1992 during
the inventory of historic sites and structures.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Telecommunication Towers
The proposed amendment seeks to establish new application
requirements and evaluation criteria for Special Use Permits for
telecommunication towers. It also proposes that towers 200 feet
or taller be considered a Class A Special Use, requiring approval
3
of the Board of Commissioners.
• Home Occupations
The proposed amendment would allow waiver of the specific
screening and setback requirements for home occupation
accessory buildings on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (4.6
acres) provided that the minimum setbacks of the zoning district
are met and the accessory structure is not visible from the road or
from adjoining property.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Private Road Standards
The proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendment would
create a fourth Private Road Class which would require a paved
surface, and could serve up to 50 lots. The amendment would also
allow the Board of Commissioners to approve subdivisions on
existing private roads which serve more than 25 lots in some
circumstances.
• Flexible Development/Open Space Guidelines
The proposed Flexible Development standards are to be presented
as a report to the Board of Commissioners at this meeting and are
provided in a separate agenda abstract. If the Board chooses to
present the amendments for citizen comment at the November 27
public hearing, the Notice must be revised to include the
proposals.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the advertisement for
public hearing on November 27, 1995.
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the upstairs courtroom of the Old Orange County Courthouse,
104 E. King Street Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 27, 1995 at 7:30 p.m.
for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the
following items:
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. CP-2-95 Charles W. and James L. Davis
REVISE the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to expand an
existing Twenty-Year Transition area to include property currently designated Rural
Residential. The property in question is located between NC 86 and Churton Street
Extension, adjacent to the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the
northern boundary of the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District. The property
proposed for designation as Twenty-Year Transition contains 50 acres, and is further
referenced as a portion of parcel 4.2..45. The remainder of the parcel is already designated
Twenty-Year Transition.
2. CP-3-95 Land Use Plan Amendments
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element include revisions to: (a) Section 2.2,
Natural Environment, to rename the section, Natural & Cultural Resources, update and
expand information concerning such features, and provide a basis for prioritizing these
features in terms of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas; (b) Section 3.3, Land
Use Plan Categories, and Section 3.4, Locational Criteria, to revise the current Land Use
Plan category, Resource Protection Area, to include updated natural and cultural resource
data, and define the category in terms of Primary Conservation Area features; (c) Section
3.5, Land Use Goals & Draft Policies, amend Goal 1.1 to include "Resource Protection
Areas" with "Public Interest Districts" as areas to protect from adverse development
impacts; and (d) the Land Use Plan map to designate "Resource Protection Areas"
consistent with the aforementioned changes to the Land Use Element text.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-7-95 Vernon P. and Barbara S. Davis
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone 4.67 acres of a 10.01-acre tract
owned by Vernon and Barbara Davis from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural
Services. The property is located at the southeast corner of NC 54 and White Cross Road,
and is known as a portion of parcel 6.30.3M. The property is designated Agricultural
Residential in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Z-&95 Jones Concrete
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone 1.54 acres owned by Henry Ernest
Jones from AR Agricultural Residential to EC-5 Existing Commercial. The property is
located on the west side of NC 86 about 2100 feet north of Carr Store Road, and is
known as parcel 2.31.5. The purpose of the request is to correct an error in the Zoning
Atlas and recognize that commercial use of the property for a concrete service business
existed at the time of the initial zoning of Cedar Grove Township on January 1, 1994.
5
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMTr
1. SUP(A)-1-95 Reba and Roses
Laura Baldwin requests approval of a Class A Special Use Permit for Non-Residential
Use/Mixed Use of a Historic Structure to operate a gift shop within an existing structure
previously used for farm use. The property to be included in the Special Use Permit
contains about 5 acres identified as portions of lots 5.14..21 and 5.14..21A. The property
is located on the west side of Baldwin Road, about 1000 feet north of St. Mary's Road.
The current zoning is R-1 Rural Residential and the Land Use Plan designation is Rural
Residential.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE to require approval of a Class B
Special Use Permit for new telecommunication towers shorter than 200 feet, and approval
of a Class A Special Use Permit for new telecommunication towers 200 feet or taller.
2. Amend ARTICLE 8.8.17 RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING AND
RECEIVING TOWERS, AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANKS (CLASS B
SPECIAL USE) to eliminate reference to and Special Use Permit requirements pertaining
to radio and television transmitting and receiving towers.
3. Add ARTICLE 8.8.17a TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS (Special Use Permit
Application Requirements and Standards of Evaluation) to require provisions which may
include the following: (a) setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts must be equal to
the tower height, but may be reduced to 50% of tower height if the remaining distance is
included within a fall zone easement on adjoining property; (b) setbacks adjacent to non-
residential zoning districts must be equal to at least 50% of the tower height, but a lesser
setback may be approved if an engineer certifies the proposed setbacks contain the
potential collapse zone; C a Type C Land Use Buffer(40 feet in width) must be provided,
and existing vegetation may be removed only to the extent necessary; (d) the applicant
must provide specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing
tower were unsuccessful; (e) the applicant must provide specific documentation that
he/she is willing to allow shared use of the proposed tower; (f) towers must be of a light
color that minimizes visual impact, and may not be lighted unless required by federal or
state law; (g)the tower must be found to not unreasonably interfere with the view from a
significant areas; and(h) obsolete towers must be removed.
4. Amend ARTICLE 6.16.6.3 HOME OCCUPATIONS IN THE RB, AR, AND R-1
DISTRICTS (MIN. 200,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS) to allow waiver of the specific
screening and setback requirements for home occupation accessory buildings provided
that the minimum setbacks of the zoning district are met and the accessory structure is not
visible from the road or from adjoining property.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
1. Amend the ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS to create a new Class
AA Private Road which could serve 26 to 50 lots, and which would require a paved
travelway 18 feet in width. The Board of Commissioners could approve a subdivision
which results in a cumulative total of 26 to 50 lots on an existing private road which does
not fully meet Class AA private road standards provided that: (a) the road exceeds
6
standards required for a Class A private road in either width or surfacing requirements; (b)
Emergency Management has certified that the road is adequate for access by emergency
vehicles; and ® at least 1/2 of the lots which are served by the private road are already
developed.
The specific text amendments proposed as described in this notice are available for public
inspection at the Orange County Planning Department.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be
received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion
at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North
Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also
call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-
2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff
member who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
November 15, 1995 November 16, 1995
November 22, 1995 November 23, 1995
• ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
c'
b
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange
County are required to complete the following application as completely
as possible:
OFFICE USE ONLY Fee 'of$410
REQUEST CAP- Z -9 5 pa 10'5'`(S
C1�00t5x50)
DATE RECEIVED: l0`5 ' lcri�_
STAFF PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE:
GENERAL DATA: T
Property Owners) Name: 64,a,/e,S tV. Jr d.�rJ�7r�l2S L • 2�aVlS
Mailing Address : '716 AIC 2-760.S-
Phone: (Home) g.33-8289 (Work) iv.4,
Agent(s) Name: /fir_ JdtiYQCIOZ�c.
Mailing Address : I-PIVC ...L'nc,r 14-37- 1:::2b1 h se& Dr. e-Aar/WI
NC Z75"!�
Phone: 9�7 7720 . Aka d,- 87/ -74-0:}
SPECIFIC DATA:
Tax Reference: Township fhVcby Tax Map 45 Block - Lot Z
Public/Private Road Name: Old NC 86 ,fS• C1, 710-,S7)
Lot Size: Acreage /0 75-7 O-IW Square Footage
Lot Frontage /SD/t om O/WB6 Lot Depth
Current Plan Category Designation(s) : General 2er1c -4rW (s A<--rt�)
Activity Node watershed ns� �n ( 5'z Ac_��
Joint Planning Area 554 cre..s' ih
CP 8.
REQUEST #TAP- 2 - 9S
SPECIFIC DATA (continued) : /
Describe Land Uses in the General Area: ✓GtCCLyI P.a (td _5" s e4af
vSr eSs /R�J�� fo /Joyf�(�JPj '�z. Q ciz.e� /ZS'IG� /Ofs- to 1d etcl�
/0h; i„ 9erlit,a.� arti ear,
On Adjacent Parcels of Land: A5,-es/- /,2*td za` .sbv1 Ord
eAs 6,,.r/,)err 46! Lk 7 jovZY a,4( r.ae4t, /:- acn e.. A,7.5
REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: 20-yea, T�,si_�io'eL
Type of Amendment: Primary Secondary X
* * * * * * * * * * * *
This application should be submitted with the following materials :
Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel,
or portion thereof, in question.
✓ Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof.
✓ Letter of request to include:
• the tax reference, general location and owner of the
parcel
• the current and requested land use plan category
designation(s)
• a narrative stating the manner in which the proposed
amendment will carry-out the intent and purpose of the
adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof
• a statement of any other circumstances, factors and
reasons which the applicant offers in support of the
proposed amendment
• statement of the changed or changing conditions in the
area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed
amendment reasonably necessary.
I (We) , the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this
application are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge and t he
application .as submitted is complete. r
ChawleS bJ. Davis .jr- ,
NAME OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTS
1D- 6-q6_
DATE
i
i
J
H
uas aua / J
`wsa=i tl
�iNSxwoa / xi g ,
-- •INax.oa — 9 yt I I oxJ
/ 1 r �� lgaslllx r
/ i ilk 0 s i .•j' --'1, t fj 9i , 40
\ Y 40�
IN !
3 11
J_4j
LA
N 5
� 1
I =
a P
v
.„a s•s•
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION FOR CHANQE OF ZONING DISTRICT 10
Oats: OCTOBER- 9, 1995
.E BOARD OF COUNTY CONNISSIONERB -a'to(y
AGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA O
The undersigned do hereby asks appticsti n to change the Zoning Attas of
Orange County as hereinafter raqueetad .
1 . The property is Located on the WE_ ST_side of g.R.p1952
WHTTF. 'ROSS ROAD :tract/Road) between .R.# NC 54 and
i.R.#` It is known as Latta) Stook It of
Orange County Tax Map La — BINGHAM _Township . It has a frontage
of 550 feat and a depth of 400,._.feet , and contains
square flat or .co scree .
2. It is desired and requested that the foragolng property be rezoned
from AR to AS
S.. The fatLeving information has bash attached in support of the
spptiostIOR for changing the Zoning Attes (• — required on atL
Opp tiestions) .
00. A telly dlseaslssed asp as a seats of net Lass s*aw was (1) logo
- seats Gas-*e*dpod flea) test *or move Lass aloe (1) less ssveta
teener URI toes-,o*owisl.••I%* tens sales is Proposes to be
paused.
'f. A Lelat deserip*tes of Las Lass ppepsssd $o be rssensd.
•g. A $$*$gmsnt of Jvstifisotlen oddrsgN nl ass sr Sept at the
fs l feet as�
(1) The alteted error is ohs Zoning opffseses, it ant, shish
sootd he soprNted by she proposed $Goodson* with s •etailad
tafLonsslan of 8804 Orpsr to the Zoning Atlas and detailed
poseenO *e* the presaged 68984864$ will *appeal the apper.
(s) Toe eAawesf or saaefl8y saepltllss. of any. in the area or
In the Qeenly losopetty. .lots* sate the prePosed looseness
Mse"6691 o00648apy le the PMNtias of Ills paths healthe
safety and losepst "tops.
'fa) The Gsseer to sale* the Presaged see"doest WILL sappy out
the felon$ old PorPs/a Of sloe edpsed Land use Ptem Or Part
therver• --- - -
•t4j Att .shop eipawosssnaeav fsat$p* and passes• whleh too
OPPLfoaR1 #flops IR IVOPept at the PrOPOSed eessdasnt
Inotsdlga, sat not tialted to, dsessassatiss ?Poo servlsa
Ol0ns/ea to-4- firs, Poties. repave end stititfas glossies)
assuring sersie66 provision 48PNi1.i11 Is sloe develepeass.
d. A List of ate Iodividesla. tires op egrpopell000 egging ppperty
adjoisind OF .46114" five hundred Mel tees of the Property
8d �r �e '��JS is •11144111... The list to Gorr**$ as of
tassel
I certify that sit information furnished in this application is accurate
o the boot of my knowledge. •
pptloaRttsl : 13 QAMTS BARBARA S. DAVIS
ddrosas 3310 HWY 54 WE
UT4.4— NC 27916 CHA , NC Zl�zlfb
1108•t - Jb -
-6 �
11
C
Y
ae
Y a
� 0
� a •
4
V V r+
a .. . O
Lr
rl
f-4
• c a °+ o
Cn L a°
a ae
Ch
to i
cn
m
OA CA o w
ca �
Y
as < u d6 O
M4 a,
o a w
4
w �
C m. a
.� 4
�
+� a
f N
N
iz
z " °
o
W
.. °' m
z 41 I a o
ow a
o0 m Y H
..
> W4 ° w q
y N O L Lq
N C ta+ *
Z O.
r�l a Y
e►
V [� a C u
12
REZONING REQUEST - 6.30 - 7M _
_VERNON P. DAVIS O
4 .67 ACRES
i4P.-0
STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
The proposed change from Agricultural Residential to
Agricultural Services District will carry out the intent of
the adopted land use plan by providing a site in a rural area
which supports the agricultural horticultural uses of the
surrounding area. The proposed use for the 4. 67• acre site is
a commercial greenhouse and outdoor storage faciltiy for
horticultural productso ( i .e. mulch materials• topsoils
etc . ) . The site lies within a Rural Commercial Activity Node.
There are several commercial uses of property in the
immediate vicinity so an AS District will be in keeping with
current uses.
� 1113 '
ARTHUR MINNIS � 1
13 �
Crane
--
?G
?: J RD. /. ; c II FK)'
c, FORD
Cane ,
N ' / 1
IIpO O i i p
\.,1r;
TEER
1 DAI YCM
WA
D d
1103 b /
J D ilvU1�L l 1 JO—MAC
go N.C.34
s+ r
' White C
1005 1 -
GREENSBORO
ZONING A7ZAS AMENDMENT REQUEST
r
Z'7-95 Vernon A & Barbara S. Davis
E�-
Scale 1"=4,000'
SEF MAP 30A
i AC. j � � 7 i26
3 O 2006 / .� 42 s
I0.0 17 AC. � /lOAC •3951 ( 14 OOK
'
� 5 3.46 AC.
r /
5634
s �. '•Y
7D 3 / 8
1.01 ?
0328 / AC.
W CITE O
3972
z 2.
I7S.G2" .09 9.
U-1,
DISTRi' 7. qC U 53`o�C. 2 i
NC 1 N
5588
mo
1.87 20
18 • 05 AC.DIG. C AC.
10
.0 i A >n: ::.<.:... .w C' +.-►-
6411 ,,,':•xc: Y.�,>.. M Nc
7 C D
O �
s9o8 40 7M
SEE MAP 308 r
15.85 AC.DIG. (MRS. BENNIE DURHA
24 2693
1 AC.
6183
21A
zR 31. 84 A C. ►AC \
3719
10.96 AC• /� 2 (01
18
13.58AC. / / Mph
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT REQUEST
Z-7-95 Vernon A & Barbara S. Davis
Scaak 1"=4001
.iANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 15
Date :
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of
Orange County as hereinafter requested . ,� �/'
1 . The property is located on the /II,,L��s�t side of S .R . # A(6 6N
Street/Road) between S .R . # /352 and
S .R . #l3 It is known a otlsl 5 Block , of
Orange C unty Tax Map 1_— Township . It has a frontage
of IR5 feet and a depth of 3�o feet , and contains
ld41 Lig.2 square feet or A9 acres .
2. It is desired and reque6tted ��at the foregoing property be rezoned
from to
3,- The following information has been _ attached . .in._ support of the
application for changing the Zoning - Atlas (* — required on all
applications) .
*a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not Less then one (1) inch
LLnn equals one—hundred (100) fast nor mars then one (1) inch equals.
�sw, twent - t201 feat- shawinpr--the land which is proposed to be
�b. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned.
*c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the
following:
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
{� explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
*131 The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use plan or pert
thereof.
*(41 ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capability to the development.
d. A list of all individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (5001 fast of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of
(oats)
I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate
to the best of my knowled e .
Applicant (sl !
Address •
Phone :
16
00
• c
L
N
rl
�+ X
L
7 C �
per„ c� r1
u L+
` J u ai
L Q
a co l�
to v
� o
u :a
� o b
` a o
cu C m fl
C G CL
u p
ro z m o
V] u p
u 1+ y C
41 u L > ^, L
ca E- u 4.j c0
cn
U b b C O >
Y. o fb (n E L L
fU�1 �N_ �• O. U 7 u1
0 U d
a m
Cry C!7 G ,i w
L-.7 c!1 O w GJ
OG to f1+ cti u
c ° a b
N L fA
Gal w L Gl
E C c0
7 Cl L
C w E cu
O +J >
y Y+
7 G! ca d
V 3 co c0
cn y y
C C
ai Cpl S°+ U
y c
c
V IV
C aC O c0 O W G -4
a' u
W o a w -4 o w
�+
1-4 W CJ N O
to
CG CJ S.+ Ol
00 � I u to C y
ca m
Z N L+ ca C c9 G
C O CJ L
cp ,p C
(U ° E > cA .i �+ u
w Sr 4! 1-1 Q L u cc
Z w G x
17
Z
JGH RD
MPO
STEWAWRT FARM
1576 � ... f �' ) � 1W
108
H*VKINS 1508
WN
.4 $p� \
A
Z as
OE WEST
W
OWE
WS
1'S42 I
40 ra
STOR m FM
Z
0 1547
Cedar"-\ CA X �
Grove in %
FDY
L�7a
RM
130
c—
=Aw-
ZONING A77AS AMENDMENT REQUEST
Z-8-95 Henry F"west Jones
Scale 1"=4,000-1
--
�1 762 18
3A
92A0��
�� 3562
D
3E
I AC4
2.1 8AC. '�
aias '1
4920 I AC.'•3 t
44 1 AC.
5 ,1
�1�n
OS414 11
34
4TS 1 n
40 AC. 1 ''
— N 1 I C7 11 04 N 884,OC
.5929 11
7398
I 9.28AC. /
N 1 ' EXEMPf 1 IQA
1 - ORANGE COUNn
—eoo 543N . CED R
2H , �' 1 \ 8334
S 106 3 AC.
9
6545 1 8 '5535 72 Z, - 10
12.39 Ac. •1 •f g74N 3 8249.00
f 9
- - - 1 3 N 24 6184 1 i 242
12 51 •4206 19
8 2.21 AC. ✓ t° ' 0 13
2 1 � 2. 12A � Zoo
N ggA
9 2E a:--�� 13A
2 (v 3 J
;D _ 4952 vn If??�ggd 16 N
21 v "•67p� 15
5 883 1 1 Qo 3.01 AC.
X2'22 ' .� 17 664
i
10- 0 I AC. \\ 2C � 22 20 18
sa 46
9528 i i m �� I C.
2.34 1 \
2.25 I 25 p� < `
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT REQUEST 7aa�
Z-8-95 Henry Earnest Jones
Scale l"=400'
•r .
19
In
lk
� �' x°e fit' Nom►. '
h
0 Q
M M
c ti
1(
x � c
c
z
J ►`A*6
u
3 m H y
7J a H Epj C
Cam
y .! g O H 6 C n r,•r ..
m
U
r• qq a ♦ Q C.Y H 4 W ,
W
y w (
V m
1 W
s
e. a o 1 Qi i! i = 1 r - o u.
20
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88
O
APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY B ARD OF COMMISSIONERS O
DATE: 10 / `I / 9
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD.
I (We) request a Class A Special Use Per 't as pro ided or in Article .8• of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance for --
•
The following information is provided in support of this request:
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: �Z� 77
Street Address or Location: 2 ,4 WIAS 11)
Orange County Tax Ma lock 2-L4- 21 b I Lot(s) Township ENO
Zoning District(s): t k-
Lot/Parcel Size: Jerk., acres or j square feet
Number of Existing Buildings: ross Floor Area: ► 4"a 4!em square feet
Number of Proposed Buildings:- 10" "Gross Floor Area: square feet
Water Supply: Public (Specify) — Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: - Public (Specify) Communit individual
•School District: Fire Distri is 5
General Land Uses in Area: Inu VVLQ 4 1�„ c
Critical Areas: Stream/Drain agiway ors lood rione Area
Watershed (Specify) unr+ S, s Historic Site
` Other (Explain) U
�
B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: /% � "`"r�'t
Twenty-six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina �V)
surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the
_.
--following-information:
--
North point, scale, and date.
/ Extent of area to be developed.
Locations and widths of all easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to
the site.
Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site.
/ Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soils maps.
% Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow.
i Existing topography at a contour interval of five (S) feet based on mean sea
level datum.
Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage
areas.
Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access.
(PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
. 2 / O,
21
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION:
le� �ns of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
o (2) full-size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy
• with the property in question clearly marked.
The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and/or applicant(s), and the
names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred
(500) feet of the property in question.
�L-- Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
*+ Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating:
1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not
available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department
certifying the suitability of the existing and/or proposed
wastewater treatment system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
I (We), the applicaut(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting
documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our)
responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony,
exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit.
APPLICANT SIGNATURES)
DATE
NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in-the-name—of-the applicant(s),
please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request.
###!i####i!i!i###!!#####iii#!•tii#!!!!l iii!!!!ii!#!!!!!!!!!!##########!###!!!i#
FEES: Amount S ��/� Date Paid: / ! Receipt #
^� PHELPS" BRO S RD. _
qp 1
' /� 1
/� �4LKE \ 22
R
(!
v.
J
C, � `• 1 — / � X002
(Do -
e6 57 1 --
RD. 1
� 1
w. 6eIL on /, 1
r R0. s `tea n Eno .p`
pom
70 7O 1
AO
c •
• ': � 'i3':!':' M�{Jr., X17 � � � / ''\�
ENO Ra
14
Wim
AL lu .�« LAW
LL
s .
E wso o a
� e.aatmr Ra d
FM
E'EN �#• n y ( � / ��
�KOALE DRIVE
d, V
.�. , 1 AATI06
RD.
40 oo,
p`\ m �..�,�`+`t ` :•: ..`vim 18 �
OLD N�
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
SUP(A)-1-95 Laura G. Baldwin IN
Scale I"= 4,000'
r6j16
2. 6 AC 23
X)o 9A
EAS
.....................
0
T
IB
z z
Zt
00
IV 2-402
19 99 AC.
-33.24 AC
30
7672
MAP 6-4"L01K 8
P/O 326.5 AC.
HILLSBORO TOWNSHIP
................
............
0
:)�o
ma.
. ......................
0
z
W
�NA�?, c r
IN
1p
... .......
.............
�);2A) 4 2107
2
Ar'
... .............
eLASS A SPECLIL USE PERNHT APPLICATION
...........
........... SUP(A)-l-95 Laum G. BaUwin
Scak 1"= 4001
S's "- —
ti
24
s ..
"A0.1
oQ CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
$ °d SUP(A)-1-95 Laura G. Baldwin
Scale 1"= 250'
- C
a
s1C
J
�N �•• ��' • tea S 1 .4 ,-
�t
O ry •r R
`•y Mf
N
O•
V �
I
` PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 25
k
i
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
d
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers
ARTICLE 4.3 Permitted Use Table
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff' Planning Board
r _ —
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low
Comment:
o PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1995
CURRENT REGULATIONS
Telecommunications towers are allowed in all residential zoning districts and most non-residential zoning districts upon
E
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 providing for more than one user. Article 8.8.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, containing the
Special Use Permit requirements for communications towers, is attached.
EXISTING TOWERS IN ORANGE COUNTY
There are 11 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 application of zoning regulations. The eight
remaining towers have received Special Use Permit approval since 1989.
The attached map shows the location of the existing cellular towers in Orange County. These towers are currently
owned by one of three companies; Sprint/Centel, Cellular One/GTE, or Dial Call Inc. Each of the three companies
recently indicated to the Planning Staff that it expects to request an additional 1 or 2 towers within a period of about
one year.
The Cellular One tower located near I-85 and Buckhorn Road currently leases antenna space for one additional user
and will lease space to a second user in the near future. There is currently no shared use on any of the Sprint/Centel
towers.
PROJECTED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF TOWERS
The most recent request for a Special Use Permit, approved on October 9, 1995, was submitted by Sprint Cellular.
Included in the application materials was a 4-year plan indicating the approximate location of antenna sites which are
expected to be needed in the vicinity of Orange,Durham and Alamance Counties.Eight sites are indicated in Orange
County's Planning jurisdiction.
I As a result of technical advances, a significant increase in the number of tower requests is anticipated in the future.
A major contributor to the anticipated increase is the advent of Personal Communication System (PCS) technology.
PCS is a digital technology which will provide a wider range of services and will operate at a lower power than the
existing cellular service, which operates with an analog technology. Because of the lower power,the PCS towers will
2
26
Cellular Tower Sites in Orange County
40
bs 6 IBS 70
3
Orange County
Planning and
Inspections
Department
5-3-95
Legend
0 Municipal Jursdictions 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.
A
27
need to be closer together, but will generally not need to be as tall. Bell South and AT&T received the two PCS
franchises awarded by the FCC to serve North Carolina and South Carolina. Bell South has indicated that 40 to 50
equipment sites will be needed in the Triangle within the next 2 years in order to provide the initial coverage for the
system. Approximately eight of these sites are anticipated in Orange County(excluding its municipalities). The height
generally needed for the new towers is expected to be about 200 feet. After the initial 40-50 towers projected in the
t Triangle are erected, more towers will be needed, based on demand. However, the additional towers would require
increasingly less height and bulk as the area is"filled in". Ultimately,towers could appear as structures similar to tall
light poles.
Increasingly, communication equipment is being sited in connection with other tall structures to reduce the
construction of towers solely for that purpose. Examples include tall buildings, water towers, church steeples, and
clock towers. For this reason, not all of the antenna equipment needed will require construction of or use of a
telecommunication tower.
LOCAL AND NATIONWIDE CONCERN
During the past several years,this issue of tower proliferation has been raised by other jurisdictions both locally and
nationwide.
Orange County amended its Zoning Ordinance in October 1994 to require that possibilities for co-location of antenna
facilities be investigated by potential applicants. The City of Raleigh and Durham City/County recently adopted
regulatory changes to address issues such as tower height, distances between towers and co-location. On June 21,
1995, the Triangle J Council of Governments sponsored an informational meeting between local government
i representatives and telecommunication providers. The issue has also been discussed at several meetings of the
Durham - Chapel Hill Work Group.
In response to requests for information from a number of jurisdictions nationwide,the American Planning Association
recently published an informational report concerning telecommunications towers (attached). The report makes
reference to the ways in which a number of jurisdictions throughout the country have addressed the issue of
telecommunication towers.
A rewrite of federal telecommunications law is now being considered. If ratified as currently proposed, the
Telecommunications Act of 1995 would give the Federal Communication Commission approval authority for the siting
and construction of cellular towers and satellite antennas, preempting local zoning regulations. On August 3, 1995,
the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution (attached) opposing this preemption.
TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Types of Towers
There are three primary types of construction for communication towers:self-supporting lattice towers,guyed
towers, and self-supporting monopole towers. The height of the towers range from about 100 to about 400
feet. Factors such as elevation and the number of antennas or users on the structure influence the height.
Constraints in Placement
Each communications provider needs a basic network of towers to provide coverage within its service area.
The basic coverage network is already established for the existing services provided by Sprint, Dial Call and
GTE,and has yet to be established for the PCS providers. Additional towers are based on demand. In areas
where use is heavy,additional towers are needed to provide uninterrupted service. Demand-based facilities
are more limited in the range within which they can be located. Flexibility in placement is limited in some
cases to a radius of about a 1/4 mile.
3
28
Multiple Users
Frequently, antennas for more than one service provider can be located on a single tower, The owner of the
tower can lease tower space to another user, provided that the tower is structurally able to support the use
and the antenna does not create interference. There are trade-offs in height. Additional height may be
needed in order to provide space for more user since each antenna must be at a height which provides the
needed coverage. Lattice towers generally provide the greatest opportunity for co-location.
REGULATIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
A recent American Planning Association publication pertaining to the siting of communication towers is attached. In
it are references to the regulations of a number of jurisdictions throughout the country. Planning Staff obtained
copies of tower ordinances from some of those jurisdictions as well as from several local jurisdictions. Below is a
summary of some of the key regulations of these jurisdictions. In almost all of the jurisdictions surveyed,
communication towers were considered a special or conditional use requiring approval of the Board of Adjustment or
the governing body. In some cases, the permit approval process depended on the height of the tower or the district
within which it is located.
• Durham City/County
Towers 35 feet or less in low-density residential districts, 75 feet or less in office/institutional districts, 120
feet or less in some commercial district,and 200 feet less in more intensive commercial and industrial districts
are allowed by right. A Minor Use Permit is required for towers taller than the minimum allowed by right
but shorter than 200 feet. A Major Special Use Permit is required for all towers greater than 200 feet.
However, towers greater than 200 feet are not allowed in the R-20 district.
Setbacks depend on the height of the tower and the zoning district of adjacent property. Setbacks for towers
in residential districts must be at least equal to the height of the tower. The setback must also contain an
established forested area with a depth of at least 100 feet. If the 100' requirement cannot be met, a
landscaped buffer is required. Setbacks can be reduced by the Board of Adjustment in special circumstances.
Additional users and equipment which do not add to tower height may be added without additional approval.
Site plans must show the locations for at least two equipment buildings, even if the tower is proposed for a
single user.
The applicant must provide documentation that no suitable facilities within the coverage area are available
to the applicant.In addition, a statement must be provided indicating the owner's intent to allow shared use
of the tower, and the number of additional users that could be accommodated.
In determining whether or not a tower is in harmony with the area, the approval body may consider the
aesthetic effects of the tower as well as mitigating factors concerning aesthetics,and may disapprove a tower
on the grounds that such aesthetic effects are unacceptable. Specific factors relevant to aesthetic effects are:
the protection of the view in sensitive or particularly scenic areas and areas specially designated in adopted
plans such as unique natural features, scenic roadways,and historic sites;the concentration of towers in the
proposed area;and whether the height,design,placement or other characteristics of the proposed tower could
be modified to have a less intrusive visual impact.
• Hillsborough
Hillsborough zoning regulations require that telecommunication towers receive approval of a Special Use
Permit by the Board of Adjustment or Town Board, depending on the zoning district within which the tower
is to be located. However, the Special Use Permit provisions do not provide for a height greater than that
allowed by the zoning district, thus the maximum height of a tower is 65 feet. This height is generally
insufficient to allow for the required coverage of the antenna, and applicants typically look for nearby area
in Orange County's jurisdiction. The Hillsborough Planning Director is working with Orange County Planning
Staff and will be proposing that Hillsborough adopt regulations similar to those of Orange County.
4
i
29
• Chanel Hill
Towers are allowed as a Special Use in certain non-residential districts. Zoning regulations require that the
zoning lot contain at least 150,000 square feet (3.4 acres) and that adequate security of the site is provided.
i
• Carrboro
Carrboro requires that telecommunication towers receive approval of a Zoning Compliance permit or
Conditional Use Permit, depending on the zoning district within which it is to be located. The only specific
development standards pertain to landscaping at the base of the tower.
• Mebane
Towers are permitted by right in the M-2 Light Manufacturing district. No specific design standards are
required.
• Wake County
Wake County requires that towers receive approval from the Board of Adjustment,provided that the exterior
appearance is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located.
• Raleigh
The City of Raleigh recently amended its regulations pertaining to communication towers per the
recommendation of a Telecommunications Task Force. Existing regulation include the following provisions:
Towers shorter than 250 feet in non-residential districts must be located at least 20 feet from adjoining
property which does not contain a dwelling or congregate care facility. If adjoining property contains
residential development then setbacks range from 100 to 200 percent of tower height, depending on the
density of the adjoining residential development. Setbacks for monopole towers are required to be a minimum
of 100% of tower height, but may not be less than 50 feet.
The setback for towers taller than 250 feet may be reduced by the City Council to less than.100% of the
height, but may not be reduced to less than 50% of the height.
In non-residential districts,towers taller than 100 feet must be located at least 1000 feet from another tower
taller than 100 feet. In residential districts,towers taller than 75 feet in height must be located at least 1500
feet from another tower taller than 75 feet. Towers which do not meet these standards may be approved if
it is demonstrated that reasonable effort has been made to locate equipment on an existing tower and that
no existing tower will satisfy the applicant's specific needs.
Within a Historic Overlay District or Metro Park Protection Overlay District,the height of the tower may not
exceed the maximum building height of the underlying zoning district.
Towers between 100 feet and 180 feet must be engineered and constructed to accommodate at least one
additional user. Towers taller than 180 feet must accommodate at least two additional users.
Towers or antennas located on existing buildings may have a height of 30 feet, or 30%of the building height,
whichever is greater.
Monopole towers are preferable to other tower construction types.
• Pensacola Florida
Setbacks must equal at least 20% of the tower height. The lowest 6 feet of the tower must be visually
screened.
5
30
The owner must show that there is not an existing tower which can reasonably be used,and must also agree
to permit other users to attach to the new tower.
The color of the tower must be of a light tone, except where required otherwise by law.
• Palm Beach County, Florida
Setbacks in all districts must be at least 20% of tower height, with a larger setback of up to 100 feet in some
residential districts. A landscape buffer is also required.
The staff maintains a list of existing towers users. Applicants must sent letter to those on the list, offering
to share tower space. Potential users have 20 days to respond. The applicant evaluates each response. If
a request for shared use is rejected and the potential user disputes the rejection, then the applicant's
evaluation is submitted to the Planning Department for consideration in making the decision on the Special
Use Permit.
• Oldham County, Kentucky
Documentation that the equipment cannot be located on an existing tower must be provided. The applicant
must specifically show that co-location would cause interference or exceed the structural capacity of the
existing tower, or show that there is no existing tower in an appropriate location.
A new communications tower must be designed to accommodate the maximum number of feasible users,
defined as one microwave transmitter,or one 2-way radio for every 20 feet above 200 feet. A letter of intent
to share space must be included as part of the application.
The minimum setback is equal to the height of the tower. For towers less than 100'in height, the setback
may be reduced with documentation that the tower can withstand 100 mph winds.
Towers taller than 200 feet must be guyed unless the Board of Adjustment finds that a self-supporting
structure would be of lesser impact.
Each tower must be inspected annually, and must be dismantled if the use is discontinued.
• Multnomah County, Oregon
Applicants must contact the owners of existing towers and request the following information: tower height,
location,existing users, whether or not tower can structurally accommodate proposed antenna or be modified
to do so, whether or not shared use would cause signal interference, and the fee which would be charged for
shared use. Responses are maintained on file. If an existing tower is known to have available space, then
a response from that owner must be provided.
A new communications tower must be designed to accommodate the maximum number of feasible users,
defined as one microwave transmitter plus one 2-way radio for every 20 feet above 200 feet, or one 2-way
radio for every 10 feet above 200 feet, or other combination to provide maximum possible use.
The minimum setback is typically the greater of that required by the zoning district or 20% of tower height
Guy anchors are generally required to be located at lease 25 feet from property lines, but may be located on
adjoining parcels with permission of the property owner.
Conditions of approval for a Special Use Permit require that the owner of a new tower record a letter of
intent to lease space on the tower,respond to requests in a timely manner, negotiate in good faith and allow
shared use if the lessee agrees to a reasonable charge.
6
• Jefferson County, Colorado
31
In 1985, A Telecommunications Plan was adopted as a component of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan. In October, 1994, the Telecommunication Element was amended to specifically address "low-power
mobile radio service", or cellular communication. The Plan provides basic background information concerning
cellular technology and establishes general policies to use in developing zoning regulations. Zoning provisions
to carry out the recently-adopted policies have not yet been developed. The text of the Telecommunication
Plan, however, addresses height, setback, co-location and other issues similar to those included in the
ordinances of the other jurisdictions described above.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
After reviewing provisions which have been adopted in a number of other jurisdiction,the Planning Staff recommends
that the attached amendment be presented for public hearing. A summary of key aspects of the proposed amendment
is provided below.
1. Currently, Article 8.8.17 contains Special Use Permit Requirements for radio and television towers, and
elevated water storage tanks,all of which require a Class B Special Use Permit. Several provisions of Article
8.8.17 apply only to communication towers. The proposed amendment would establish telecommunication
towers,which would include television,radio and cellular towers,as a separate use. Current provisions which
pertain to Elevated Water Storage Tanks would remain unchanged.
2. All telecommunication towers now require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by the Board of
Adjustment. The proposed amendment would classify only those towers shorter than 200 feet as a Class B
Special Use. Towers 200 feet or taller would require approval of a Class A Special Use Permit by the Board
of Commissioners.
3. Adjacent to residential zoning districts, setbacks are proposed to be equal to the tower height. The setback
to property lines may be reduced to 50%of the height of the tower if the remaining distance is included within
an easement on adjoining property.
4. Adjacent to non-residential zoning districts, the setback must be at least 50% of the tower height. A lesser
setback may be approved if an engineer certifies the proposed setbacks contain the potential collapse zone.
However, the setbacks may not be reduced to less than the setbacks required by the zoning district, or 20%
of tower height, whichever is greater.
5. A Type C Land Use Buffer (40 feet in width) must be provided. Existing vegetation may be removed only
to the extent needed to accommodate the use.
6. The applicant must provide specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower
were unsuccessful.
7. The applicant must contact other communication providers with an offer to share space. Responses must be
documented. Towers must be designed to support at least one additional user, and a statement indicating
the applicant's willingness to allow other users to attach to the tower must be included in the Special Use
Permit.
8. Towers must be of a light color that m;n,mi es visual impact, and may not be lighted unless required by
federal or state law.
9. The tower must be found to not unreasonably interfere with the view from a historic site, scenic road, or
major view corridor.
10. Obsolete towers must be removed.
7
32
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 building
(A-1-85) (Sprint/Centel)
5 N/A equipment building at base of existing
(A-7-89) Carolina Metronet WZZU radio tower
6 (Cellular One/GTE) 400 tower and two equipment buildings
(A-8-89)
7 Sprint/Centel 300 towers and equipment building
(A-2-92)
8 300
(A-3-92)
9 250
(A-11-93)
10 GTE Mobilenet 180 tower and equipment building
(A-1-95)
11 Dial Call 375 Re-submittal of previous request which
(A-2-95) was denied and appealed to Superior
Court
12 Sprint Cellular 200 Scheduled for Board of Adjustment
(A-2-95) 10/9/95
8
33
8.8.17 Elevated Water Storage Tanks
(Class B Special Use)
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.
apse
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following spec 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.
8eft
9
34
8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (NEW)
8.8.17a.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 structures within 500 feet of the site, existing and
proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet and any officially designated floodways and
floodplains, or the presence of alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all
exterior material.
c) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing and proposed trees, plus
shrubs, ground cover and other landscape materials.
d) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for locating the proposed facilities on an
existing tower. Such evidence shall consist of:
1. Copies of letters sent to owners of all existing towers within a one-mile radius of the proposed site,
requesting the following information:
(a) Tower height;
(b) Existing and planned tower users;
(c) Whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed
tower without causing structural instability or radio frequency interference; and
(d) If the proposed antenna cannot be accommodated on the existing tower, assess whether the
existing tower 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. A copy of all responses received; and
3. A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be located on an existing tower.
e) Evidence that the applicant is willing to lease space on its tower to other telecommunications
providers,provided the use would not interfere with the applicants use,on a commercially reasonable
basis. Such evidence shall consist of-
1. Copies of a notice sent by certified mail to telecommunication tower users (list provided by the
Planning Department) inviting potential communication tower users to apply for space on the
proposed tower. The notice shall include the specifications of the proposed tower, its general
location, the general rate structure for leasing space (which shall be based on reasonable local
charges), its proposed height, and a phone number to locate the owner of the tower.
2. A copy of each response received and the applicant's evaluation of the feasibility, and the
applicant's response to each request to share tower space. Factors to be considered when
evaluating the feasibility of shared use include but are not limited to, the following. structural
capacity, radio frequency interference, geographical service area requirements, mechanical or
electrical incompatibilities,inability or ability to locate equipment on approved and unbuilt towers,
cost (if fees and costs for sharing would exceed the cost of a new tower), FCC limitations that
would preclude shared use, and other applicable code requirements.
3. If the applicant rejects one or more requests and if a potential tower lessee disputes the rejection
for shared use, then the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a brief evaluation
10
35
of each rejected response. For responses rejected due to structural limitations, the explanation
f shall include structural improvements necessary to support the rejected requests.
f. Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating requirements which affect the
appearance of the proposed tower, such as lighting and coloring.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application for approval:
a) The minimum lot size shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
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 zoning districts, minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the
property boundary shall be equal to 50% of the height of the tower. The setback may be reduced
to no less than 20%of the tower height if an engineer certifies that the proposed setbacks contain
the potential collapse zone.
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) No structures may be located within the fall zone,which extends to a radius of 100%of the tower
height, except those structure which are accessory to the tower.
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.
11
f
r 36
j) The color of the tower is of light tone, except to the extent required by law, so as to minimise its
visual impact.
k) The towers will not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other federal or
state agency.
1) The tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere with the view of or from any historic site,
scenic road, or major view corridor.
m) All obsolete and unused communication towers shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation
of use. The Special Use Permit shall include a requirement that the applicant record a removal
agreement to ensure compliance with this requirement.
12
37
Qt N P W N r O tD w WJ::: v
pAr WE 040 MQ H pApZ 0 to R♦fA M D �1H NH N
B tat MC m1.- p 03 5 rn mm @0-r; 0r 0
@ rt@ rt@ @ ry
wH nn wro Ap W o 0 o n8 as n"' fro a
A a @ rt H 8 n H r r O r r H 00 @ 0
@ o+ Fm w a0 m m am rn n n @
rt GO rt t.. m rt t% .. .. O.« a 7
tt to M C a m rt m w w a rt H H G H
@ ct'a Wrt mM• r 4 r M wr a5 : a'p atq
a a a a r a m O W O < ktl 0 a r r Al w a r
rt rt rt P.- n,w m a M a 0 r a a t-n a n w
m
P.rt w - p a n ma ma W ma
A 0 a a -q r r G n 0 m ♦t rt N it W
a m•C mn O a W w a xin O 00 W
rt w r @ rt O rt o a a 0.
to r H m W b a Itm{ 7 •q
ry £ rt W ft" !a-�
wNrJ K W r R, X 0 rt a h
i i i t rn :7 c a n m m
r�omr m t1 N
�a so ao co n 1rD o
Arvut
N � � k >! • to • �► -, 0! G! �
m
Y W s w s C7 y a y {p y y
?�D to >i * ♦ W ♦ y.: tA' W 0
30 r
W +t s W s .-. Of CO N0
W
0
iti A
w Y » `"
k • O7 s to
to W tJ W D3 My t9
COY H c
rd c
IF s W s y tlq 00 L' M W Q to
~ r AAC:
GMb M!ty 0.4
N N Q Q
H W
Pl W
A >t rt s 00 s r 1t kq fA t] y
W W
4� ♦ • • tr1 a ,t y� Ol dl 6I tv
P ('�
OD w
N N
0 >r . . ao w ■ » O
w
M a h,t
r t..
N N
04 of
W W
Dip ip
W R s • W
N M
d ty
JUNE 1995 38
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Local Planning Issues in end of last year.That, in turn, has expanded the number of
Siting Cellular Towers cellular transmission sites to 17,920 last December from just
384 a decade earlier.
In response to both the increasing demand for mobile
By Michelle 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 towers,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$7 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 to the highest bidders among a combination of
powers over cellular transmission facilities.This issue of Zoning older and newly formed companies.The FCC will auction more
News aims to acquaint local planners with the impacts,real and licenses later 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 considerations. licensed carriers are already acquiring sites for towers and their
Planners should understand that some jurisdictions regulate accompanying equipment buildings.Where a market exists for
cellular towers specifically,while others have regulations that cellular communications, local government must be prepared to
apply to"communication towers"generally.Wherever possible, _M,,,_ _ deal with siting issues.
we have tried to cull examples of regulatory techniques specific ' The industry's growth
Camorca so cellular
to cellular technology.These varying degrees of specificity also has outpaced many local
tower:a solution to
exist in the regulations of many state communications and 'h.. governments'ability to
public utilities agencies. Planners should learn their state' aesthetic zoning issues P $ s _ _ _ es understand the impacts of
bureaucratic structure and its definition of communication cellular towers and,
towers before drafting local regulations. therefore,to properly site
Representatives of the cellular industry were also consulted and regulate them.The
for this article. In contrast to the tone of the CTIA petition, situation is further
many expressed an eagerness to work with APA and local complicated when residents,
communities to educate planners and citizens toward the expressing alarm over the
development of safe,fair,and informed regulations. aesthetic and reported
health-related effects of
Cellular History cellular cowers,prompt
In 1974, the FCC expanded the radio spectrum available to the y A hasty, reactionary
public in order to make room for budding cellular telecommu- .� i. s>..� regulation.To avoid writing
nications technology. Through the mid-1980s,the industry _ bad law,some communities
fa-
worked to develop higher-quality transmission devices.Cellular ; have instituted siting
technology was first marketed to consumers in the form of the moratoriums until they have
car phone. It presented local governments with the phenomena ample opportunity to
of cellular telephone antennas and the towers on which they are research and formulate
mounted—cowers that had to be erected somewhere in the regulations that are fair to
community. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications,cellular both the community and
technology made it possible for a caller 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 that share Thwarted by local"learning
the same radio waves.As a mobile user passes through"cells" curves"and"regulatory
that 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 powerful 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 Consumer 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 told 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
39
Association of Telecommunications Officers and and lattice,or self-support towers,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 Cities,and the National Association of Counties have occupy space on other types of communication towers 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 Technology cell or repeater facility is installed on a preexisting tower to
Low-power mobile radio communication,also known as cellular ensure that transmissions within that area are clear.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 can accommodate their service area. In
car phones) to 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 trend toward shorter towers and Iess
For example,a portable phone transmits a signal to the obtrusive mounting fixtures is likely to prevail.
nearest cellular antenna.The call 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 there„the call 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 to
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 can 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 destina-
tion number from within the radius of one cell antenna,she may Screening, Landscaping, and Setbacks
travel into the radius of another during the call.The call proceeds The most common objection to cellular towers and antennas is
uninterrupted as the transmission is"patched”from one antenna their aesthetic impact. Residents, many of whom use the
to the next.While the caller is moving,the cellular antennas are technology,do not want to see the towers cluttering their
automatically locating an unoccupied frequency on the next landscape or degrading property values.Planners 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 call, set back towers and their associated buildings.All the
either he is out of range or the nearest antenna is at full ordinances reviewed contain some son of requirement for
capacity.Cellular tower 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 tower and the storage
a network of short-range cell sites with a fixed capacity.If the building.Towers can also be camouflaged to blend with the
cells are not linked by cellular towers, microwave dishes,or surrounding environment through the use of color,materials,
ground-wired towers,transmission will fail. Similarly,if a cell is and design. For instance,Jefferson Parish,Louisiana, requires
crowded by too many users,it must be"split" 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 can share space on the same tower. It is compatible with its environment.The use of residentially
physically impossible for a single carrier 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 exterior of residential
space on existing towers within the jurisdiction be used before structures within the neighborhood.In no case will metal
new towers are erected.In other words,cellular carriers must exteriors be allowed for accessory buildings.
lease space to other carriers on their towers;the cellular industry 2.The tower itself must be of such design and treated with an
considers this leasing arrangement to be a less-than-ideal architectural material so that it is camouflaged to resemble a
solution.As the demand for cellular telecommunications woody tree with a single trunk and branches on its upper part.
increases,cells in a given area must be subdivided,or additional
carriers must be permitted to operate there.The end result is the Setback distances can be guided by aesthetic and safety
need for more towers. concerns. Most are expressed as a percentage of the tower
height. In the Pensacola, Florida,ordinance, the setback serves a
Towers and Antennas primarily aesthetic purpose:
Towers may need to range in height from 50 to 200 feet so that (71he distance between the base of the communications towers
antennas can overcome the challenges 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 can cover and the demand tower height.
within their radius.Higher towers generally cover a larger
geographic area,but have a lower service demand,and are known Safety-oriented setbacks establish a clear zone for falling
as coverage sites. Shorter towers,known as capacity sites,cover tower debris or the worst-case scenario, the tower's collapse.
smaller areas with a more concentrated demand.Tower height can Falling zones for cowers 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, but many
or the technical capabilities of the antennas being mounted. are designed to collapse first toward their base.The Oldham
In addition to dedicated, free-standing cellular towers County, Kentucky,setback provisions are designed with falling
(monopoles), there are guyed towers (anchored with guy wires) zones in mind:
2
40
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 tower to any adjoining sometimes as little as 10 in urban areas.
property line or supporting structure of another tower is a It should be noted that some ordinances, like Multnomah
minimum of 100 percent of the proposed tower height. No Counry's, include provisions that automatically apply more
variance shall be granted from this minimum setback stringent standards if those are ever issued by the federal
requirement.Towers less than 100 feet in height that cannot government. For more information about the relationship of
satisfy this 100 percent setback requirement may be approved
by the board,provided that the applicant present a certification cellular communications to EMFs,planners may consult the
from a registered engineer that the tower will withstand winds Electromagnetic Energy Association, 1255 23rd St., NW,
of 100 miles per hour. Washington, DC 20037; 202-452-1070. EEA is a nonprofit
group representing corporations and individuals associated with
Some communities also determine setbacks by what are industries that 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 o n EMFs
• • •
specific provisions related to the electromagnetic fields(EMFs)
generated by the new cower.The,Jefferson County ordinance
requires a complete non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation }
(NIER)analysis with every tower application. o assist local governments in developing
regulations for siting cellular towers,the American
Electromagnetic Fields atpnal Standards Institute has published the
The health risks associated with EMFs have been the second ands of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
greatest source of community opposition to the siting of cellular Engineers in IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect
phone towers For reasons related to both personal safety and the to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic. Fields,3KHz to 300 GHz, 1992(ANSI/IEEE C.95.1-1992
perceived impact on property values. EMFs are divided into two [RedesYgnation as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-19911).Another
basic categories. Ionizing radiation includes X-rays and gamma useful ANSI document is Recommended Practice for the
rays. Non-ionizing radiation, the category to which cellular Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic
communication devices, radio and TV broadcasting antennas, Fields—RF and Microwave(ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992).
and satellite stations belong, is considered less powerful because Order from American National Standards Institute, 11
it does not strip the electrons from atoms and molecules to form - W 42nd St-New York, NY 10036;212-642-4900.Also
highly reactive panicles known as ions. Instead, it harnesses see the IEEE position statement,"Human Exposure to
energy gen-erated from the vibration of molecules to convey Radiofrequency Fields for Portable and Mobile Tele-
information or, in the case of microwave ovens or electric phones and Other Communications Devices, 1992."
blankets, to create heat. Though it predates the advent of cellular communi-
cations,a good source for general information on the
Since 1979,scientists have conducted more than 1,000
regulation of radio and television towers is PAS Report
studies,some of which have linked non-ionizing #384,Regulating Radio and TV Towers,by Beverly
electromagnetic field sources to higher incidences of cancer Bookin and Larry Epstein(Chicago:American Planning
among children living in close proximity to an EMF source. Association, 1984).For more information on EMFs in
However,these studies,often cited in opposition to the siting of eneral,consult PAS Report#435,Electromagnetic
power lines and communication antennas,have also been found Ids and Land-Use Controls,by s
inconclusive because they were unable to isolate their findings an Matthe Connelly( hi
to a single EMF source.This is because most homes are 9 o 1).
e n f,
equipped with a variety of modern appliances that generate PI rs alp I I
varying EMF levels.No scientific study has shown a specific o 03.312- U^s
correlation between cancer and the NIER levels generated by a
cellular communication facility or device.Likewise,no scientific E ,
research has proven them to be completely safe.
The cellular radio system operates in the 800-900 megahertz
(MHz) ultra-high frequency band,formerly used for UHF Other Standard Provisions
television broadcasting.Currently there are no general federal Colocariom In order to minimize tower proliferation, most
guidelines for what is considered acceptable public exposure to communities require applicants to exhaust all possible avenues
radio-frequency-emitted radiation.The U.S. Environmental for sharing space on existing towers,usually in a section of the
Protection Agency is developing such standards, but, in the ordinance on colocacion or shared use. Factors that determine
meantime, many communities are relying on the American feasibility include available space on existing towers, the tower
National Standards Institute for professionally acceptable radio owner's ability to lease space, the tower's structural capacity,
frequency emissions standards for all types of communication radio frequency interference,geographic service area
towers(see box on page 3). Many of the ordinances we reviewed requirements, mechanical or electrical incompatibilities, the
incorporate the ANSI standards into their review process and comparative costs of colocacion and new construction,and any
approval requirements.Though too detailed to list here, they FCC limitations on tower sharing.
present acceptable levels of NIER exposures from towers 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 towers typically operate sharing space on towers. Local regulations should be developed
at the lowest power levels.While a television tower emits up to in tandem with such agencies. In Palm Beach County,.Florida,-
5 million watts, and commercial radio stations up to 100,000 tower applicants must send a certified mail announcement to all
3
41
other tower users in the area,stating their siting needs and/or Where the site 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 means of
Applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a tower unless the collector street.
mechanical,structural,or regulatory factors prevent them from Parking requirements generally do not apply to cellular
sharing. In other words,competing carriers cannot lock each towers. For those communities that require parking, the
other out of territory.The ordinances for Jefferson County, '11', provision applies to an overall"communication tower facility"
Oldham Counry, Multnomah County,and Palm Beach County ordinance in which spaces are required only when the
offer detailed examples of sharing provisions and leasing terms. equipment building is staffed.
Structural Integrity and Inspection.Most ordinances require Lighting and Security. Lighting for communication towers is
that any new or modified towers be certified by an engineer accord- required when the tower is tall enough to concern the Federal
ing to structural standards for antennas offered by either the Elec- Aviation Administration (FAA).Jefferson Parish acknowledges
tronic Industries Association or the Telecommunication Industry FAA regulations and the privacy of neighboring property owners:
Association. Inspection schedules seem to 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 state authority, it
Inspections—The town council may require periodic inspections shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding
of communication towers to ensure structural integrity.Such residential property.
inspections 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)self-support towers—ac least once certification of the tower application by their local airport
every five years;c)guyed towers—at least once every three 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 documentation that the proposed communication tower has been
an inspection,the town council may require repair or removal of reviewed and is not determined to be a hazard by the FAA...
a communication tower. (via)the Palm Beach County Department of Airports. ...The
PBCDOA shall review the communication tower application to
Equipment Buildings and Lot Sizes. Cellular towers are often determine if it is a hazard to any FAA flight paths.
accompanied by a small, usually unstaffed storage building that
houses transmitting equipment. Some ordinances treat them as Some ordinances also require fencing or signage.Jupiter
accessory uses or structures,while others specifically state 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 area's density. Oldham County seeks to discourage more Trespassing"signs.
intense use of the site: Abandonment.Most ordinances also restrict the time in
[T]hese facilities may not include offices,long-term vehicle which an unused tower may stand to between six and 18
storage,other outdoor storage,or broadcast studios,except for months,with some requiring the tower applicant to cover the
emergency purposes,or other uses that are not needed to send demolition costs.
or receive transmissions. Application 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 exactly 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 tower siting.These requirements should be clearly stated
Multnomah County ordinance has the most extensive treatment and not impossible to fulfill.Jefferson County offers an
of maintenance impacts: excellent explanation of what it requires�room`any tower
Equipment at a transmission facility shall be automated to the applicant,and its provisions demonstrate serious research by the
greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and congestion.The planning department and other local agencies.Review of this
applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs, ordinance and its accompanYing�Low Power Mobile Radio.._
including frequency of service,personnel needs,equipment om�ons Sand Use Plan Addendum"is recommended
--- -- - -
needs,and traffic,noise,or safety impacts of such maintenance. far anyone dealing with cellulai siting issues.
Meeting the Challenge
Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. 'Any cellular carrier seeking to locate in a community is prepared
Subscriptions are available for$45(U.S.)and S54(foreign). to deal with siting controversies. Some corporations have even
Michael B.Barker,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director:
William R.Klein,Director of Research. gone so far as to pay for retaining a third-parry consultant to
Zoning News is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor;Michael Barrette,Dan Biver,Fay review anything they have helped draft.These firms target sites
Dolnick,Michelle Gregory,Sanjay Jeer,Beth McGuire,Marya Morris,Chris Smith, for acquisition based on their topographic efficiency, their
Reporters;Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,Design and Production. accessibility by road,the availability of electric power and land-
Copyright 01995 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St.,Chicago.IL based telephone lines, their leasability,preexisting vegetation and
60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776
Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. screening potential, existing zoning,compatibility with adjacent
All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any land uses,and their ability to transmit to the largest area.
form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording, If local governments show that they can meet most of these
or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing
from the American Planning Association. needs while preserving their community's aesthetic integrity,
Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber health,and safety, they should be able to avert federal
and 10%postconsumer waste. ® preemption of their local rights and responsibilities.
4
RJG-01-1995 08 33 FROM ORPNGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO INSPECTIONS P.02iO3
42
SCENIC NORTH CAROLINA
Scenic Alert--MY 3L 1995
Ad Tufty 0 Made Focal CoMd of Towea!
pzmwsTwv tills amt***as mW g'yarcam=a:pa*le.
M,Wa hiopM a major n vft of law bas bm movbg
through bolt*6 Hum amd Sooft W= is 2WOM a • • IX AN
tn
MWYAW Zr X 1539 vat be b v&ic d w fim an w ds6acdy afar August 2.7ft pmvidn
local wyarnoxg w6ma*is opposed by ft Na tkmW Assodadsa of tom,ttn:
Codame of Wayats,ffie tnw of Com iod tbo Mardi Pf=dmg Anwiad(a Mm is
expected to be sort aaneodmeot oi' d an 9ie ifioaar to modify flue povisioats.
�ti iotl'. Plaee cmsmcx y=Cbmaa txtoaml dye by pi m or€ant.Bede abe
atioaaa bill is agh 4 vaunt piece of l9211101m mesrabPro of ttse How of
Iiepssureostives 09 not focmbg on *W itmoe. AU co ant add cm be amadwd by
Aslc yot¢Camaa tot
• Apposc TSde 1; Sm J07 vaqubiq ft KC to jaw ieg**=aD mm pbcm=L local
gl Yui =Wu&v 9idd cxeade error
pvBc jr OR 9D phccmm of caoamttaaacsd Ito TMs wa dd mmave kxml elected
ofOdWis w d cmaamt fmm dotal m oonccnft pbu meet. access, :ady =am= (e4g.,
$-b8 sw awd am[ pb use ofctammataaaa-1 amm
Opp= Tift 1, 3m 3% phi afire pX to 1=0 mpia im ptabagdtmg IDW
pvm
t6eiovmeaat a£ dbA am6emas.
• Chwo 7%b 1,Sac.107 r bdog to die ur aat&dud popesrty,ri*.ofw&y,aed
by tafM Ywvideta lift kD9WP of a i*d PresoMfim tW A fsdoW
pis Moro be had so owVwdu ddide the aged fedcW ap wy cam pare am
amtwmdlb�aIaea6 oaokt bat e ibe and tiro aigowy'a misdm bdrea facto',
mbt w WO got a,dW coo ddmadm Mdw dais bW aaandau,&'Kris imagmge f#&
m womb tps dW A federod 1 'OF Ud s 93&t is s)oral eaaa1 11 and tba<isctaes sorb as
abeataetim ased impwt an meqwmfq paw sbooid be comideio&
pravidoae m satiQ fore PWvW=titsm RX WS amd miaM a local Bove m w
For mm la&asaoiay aamadt Daft mcLdiat(919)M3687.
»w. ,#�,s • n kbw.�= - Xd1W6XX—ase/a . sn►a1ai,'�a� - s
a�noar�Yaavr+ae�t
• A<l--L'1-1995 08,35 FROM ORANGE CTY COMAISSIONERS TO INSPECTIONS P.03/03
t jVfj 1 43
r Fed s W
MORAX JULY 31,199 >- ; -
contj •''
Vf
a�toY e. t:�l.�► On Yc:
aid hr 11tia Meets. !fa stewtrar roir a
�►M WIN �a�en�7 o Im dfm* mpto
b th 'iris teal 10 am" vow wtia taootAm rksm dceme
���asp NOW� �
t�aMotr sae .w
� mdm A mere dlft*tQ ,�, � ;
l; mckt ..eaiaret�attetsa� �
d a a s �bC p ea a mmopd� tweat I, DIP Ms 1uR to
VFW
ww
:near tba leeatlaee d l" .r eo ww ie
=sow- . ` icon n1bilm no be. - ,afd ON
�boas�_.M Fare- r`md`.o s°at ea d�feidr m"R j■ie dmimm of as
maew�s telaaoneonetintit s xat� `ooft9d e,2oa�t�bs'etl'
M am woo ft ft'*4 t �U�p�Vold Fow t'a'm[ _
• ea{�aid � tbr . i de4wEi��en�t a tUbs prwd+ar�ff ftabtbaawlift n wt r l � i as ve+ee the
Dour as ptn� bed setdas "!!�a'aae lNsag'appaaelt to s�b*��
daeia� + tafa¢teai 1�aeoowleat mtadaa me Do esooa�
of altnlar tam eaa sad bids bi doDi aaelc aa�f4pbo m
b7 Bas Awtmt •d mesup as ova bad bi= �° °`
etod rieoetso-9 ta+t. dte imo 'As
a..am m�. em* Bd v a an9w M. b -
Oft m+► t ad "
Ya*fslmmAt 44 MOM. paeF. Ddomms,-sue a" haw bee* a b" +t aaelt utr�ees.ae!
en to rate .hs"pu,ta,. tmo ft sap a saaeaeee:d m .o tree
20 pattioe w Dea�I ka � On alpm..I at �q
At a rte w the tom.eta aieMe eo Sam Jew Adma =WO AP
d IL
ow bri n dti o ne fi sDa
7wr'Ink ow Tad: iT 'J b � we AN bo t5o
-�
ma Ike bass peopwo�, ad "fit mm
� aaat��m
,tom *W. F aa-,a man wt aw snow.
'- tblftdr �■oe d
*MAW
eow�ss b�tiee�s,ii �t tbis�aa!woes.�Janes Pad llaQ,��teeatraa
" pe'ebMett-i4 �ort'tlaet- P. liW^ D-V&.breeoslaoed ate d tita
ttld ewaei_Oft . asa ks"awt WNW WW ao&
bK at eat taases s Beal � �d
*M �
ft tie. d tbs a�aet." twt tt K
asaedmwt,py ea„tettmar~ _ Ift s+artbeft•d�q:,•
qtr owdti6iDroaiY�eaiitt�r ,a b iaattto.a 6� d
ae 4 amr: "Mm e" +do ediooet�caila��aea�
t ,�ib�ateleet '' ma
seepeaat
bw. am
It-t. +w• d sa""""me be bm� as
` !a ap�ewa
W. 1t4utar �Cuumbooss TAW
K +i'w .Thee: °°e'et'dt a hoar teas aT"Awle as
d
- itea■ete
solaw vft � "I ddos't�t Wob-
Dr ai.;dw=' i 4 a WOW +dl�D
TWAL P-W
TOTAL P.03
a
44
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL REGULATION OF CELLULAR
COMMUNICATION TOWERS
WHEREAS, Orange County, North Carolina has adopted zoning
regulations throughout the County in order to provide for orderly
growth and minimize impacts from conflicting land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County, North Carolina Zoning Ordinance
requires cellular communication towers to receive approval of a
Class B Special Use Permit in order to assure that such towers will
not have adversely affect the value and use of surrounding
properties; and
WHEREAS, Orange County, North Carolina has received an ever-
increasing number of requests for new cellular towers; and
WHEREAS, the increase in the number of towers is expected to
continue in the future; and
WHEREAS, Orange County, North Carolina is in the process of
developing ordinance amendments which seek to address technological
requirements of the industry as well as citizen concerns; and
WHEREAS, a major rewrite of telecommunications law now being
considered by the United States House of Representatives and
United States Senate would give the Federal Communication
Commission approval authority for the siting and construction of
cellular towers and satellite antennas, preempting local zoning
regulations; ,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners during this regular meeting on August 3, 1995,
urges its Congressmen, the Honorable Frederick Heineman (4th
Congressional District) and the Honorable Melvin Watt ( 12th
Congressional District) , to oppose any provisions of HR 1555 which
would preempt local control of the siting of telecommunication
towers and antennas, as expressed in the attached letters from the
Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
45
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(DRAFT]
REFERENCE: ZONING ORDINANCE - ARTICLE 6. 16. 6. 3
Home Occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 Districts
(Minimum 200,000 square foot lots) .
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1995
Purpose of Amendment: The proposed amendment will clarify the
intent of setback and screening requirements for home occupations
on lots greater than 200, 000 square feet (4. 59 acres) in size.
Impacts/Issues: Dimensional requirements for home occupations are
intended to be proportional to the size of the lot on which the
home occupation is located. That is, larger areas for home
occupations are allowed on lots that contain at least 4.59 acres.
To ensure that adjacent properties are not affected by home
occupations on larger lots, additional setbacks and screening
requirements are included in Article 6.16. 6. 3b) .
The proposed amendment will clarify the intent of Article 6. 16.6.3
which is to buffer from adjacent roads and lots accessory
structures and outdoor storage areas used for home occupations. The
amendment will also correct the placement of text controlling the
amount of outdoor storage allowed. Currently that provision is
found under the standards for accessory structures; however, it
applies to all home occupations (on larger lots) and will be
renumbered so that the meaning is evident.
EXISTING ORDINANCE TEXT:
6.16. 6.3 Home Occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 Districts-
(Minimum 200, 000 square foot lots) .
The following restrictions shall be applied to home occu-
pations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess
of 200,000 square feet.
a) A maximum of 2000 square feet of floor area may be
used for the home occupation. This floor area can
be in a detached accessory structure.
b) If. an accessory structure is to be used for the
home occupation, the following criteria must be
met:
46
1. The accessory building shall be set back at
least thirty (30) feet farther from the road
than the residence.
2. The accessory building shall not be closer
than forty (40) feet to side and rear lot
lines.
3 . The accessory building and any required off-
street parking shall be adequately screened
from view of the road and adjacent property by
a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or
trees. In lieu of an evergreen hedge, a six
(6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant
materials may be used for screening purposes.
4. Any outdoor storage of materials for use in
the home occupation shall be totally screened
from the road and from adjacent property in
the same manner as accessory structures. The
storage area shall not exceed 1000 square
feet. The setback from the side and rear
property lines shall be the same. as for an
accessory building for use as a home
occupation.
C) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9.
d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which
are not produced on the premises is prohibited,
except in the case of the delivery and sale of
goods incidental to the provision of a service.
e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will
generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or
electrical interference detectable at the lot lines
of the lot on which the home occupation is located.
f) No more than two--(2)- individuals not residing in
the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT (new text underlined) :
6. 16.6.3 Home Occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 Districts
(Minimum 200, 000 square foot lots) .
The following restrictions shall be applied to home
occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots in
excess of 200,000 square feet.
a) A maximum of 2000 square feet of floor area may be
used for the home occupation. This floor area can
be in a detached accessory structure.
47
b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the
home occupation, the following criteria must be met
unless the accessory structure is not or will not
be visible from adjacent roads and.pronerty:
1. The accessory building shall be set back at
least--thirty (30) feet farther from the road
than the residence.
2. The accessory building shall not be closer
than forty (40) feet to side and rear lot
lines.
3 . The accessory building and any required off-
street parking shall be adequately screened
from view of the road and adjacent property by
a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or
trees. In lieu of an evergreen hedge, a six
(6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant
materials may be used for screening purposes.
4--r-cc Any outdoor storage of materials for use in the
home occupation shall be totally screened from the
road and from adjacent property in the same manner
as accessory structures. The storage area shall not
exceed 1000 square feet. The setback from the side
and rear property lines shall be the same as for an
accessory building for use as a home occupation.
ed) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9.
de) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which
are not produced on the premises is prohibited,
except in the case of the delivery and sale of
goods incidental to the provision of a service.
ef) No equipment or process shall be employed that will
_generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or
electrical interference detectable at the lot lines
of the lot on which the home occupation is located.
€g) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in
the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation.
Ordinance Review Committee:
Planning Board:
BOCC:
4 48
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
# ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: Private Road Standards
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1995
` PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow up to 50 lots to be served by a private
road provided that specified design criteria are
met.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations require that no more than
25 lots be served by a private road. The subdivision
of any lot which creates 26 or more lots on a private
road can only be approved if the road is constructed
to paved public road standards as required by NCDOT.
Currently, there are three classes of roads in the
Private Road Standards of the Subdivision Regulations.
Class C roads (8 ' travelway) serve up to three lots.
Class B roads ( 12 ' travelway) serve four to nine lots.
Class A roads ( 18, travelway) serve ten to 25 lots.
Private roads which serve more than 25 lots must be
constructed to NCDOT public road standards.
The proposed amendment would create a fourth private
road class (Class AA) to serve 26 to 50 lots. A Class
AA road would be paved, but would not be required to
meet all of the criteria required by NCDOT for
acceptance into the State road system. The quality of
the road would be adequate to serve traffic, while
allowing trees in the outer portion of the right-of-
way, maintaining greater privacy within the
development, providing more opportunity to establish
speed limit signs, speed bumps or other traffic
cont'$ol measures within the development, and lowering
the cost of road construction. The increase in
design flexibility could also be an incentive used to
encourage open space development.
New Roads
New Class AA roads would be paved to the standards
required in the Zoning Ordinance for roads in new
mobile home parks. These standards specify how the
road base and surface paving is constructed, and were
developed to provide adequate road support for the
movement of mobile homes in and out of mobile home
parks. These same standards should provide a
sufficient road quality to accommodate traffic of the
development as well as construction traffic.
49
The maximum size of a mobile home park is 50 acres. A
park within the AR or R-1 zoning district could
} contain up to 50 mobile homes. This number is also
t consistent with information contained in the Vermont
Local Roads Program, provided to staff by Randall
Arendt, which indicates that up to 50 lots can be
accommodated on a private road in a cost-effective
manner. These factors provide the rationale for the
recommendation of a 50-lot breakpoint.
Existing Roads
Another issue addressed in the proposed amendment
concerns new lots on existing private roads.
Currently, no further subdivision can occur on a
private road which already serves 25 lots or more
unless the road is constructed to NCDOT standards.
The cost to construct a public road is prohibitive for
a landowner who wishes to create, for example, only
one additional lot on a lengthy private road. In that
case, the conditions of subdivision approval cannot be
' met, even if the impact of the subdivision is
negligible with respect to impacts on the existing
road. There is currently no flexibility in the
Subdivision Regulations to address these situations.
The creation of the Class AA private road standards
would alleviate this situation in some circumstances,
but there may still be situations where an existing
private road does not meet all of the Class AA
stnadards.
The proposed amendment would enable the Board of
Commissioners to address these situations in a manner
similar to that used to grant a reduced right-of-way
width. It would allow the Board of Commissioners to
approve a subdivision which results in a cumulative
total of 26 to 50 lots on a road which does not fully
meet the new Class AA private paved road standards if
all of the following criteria are met:
1. The road is existing; and
2. The road exceeds Class A private road standards in
either width or surfacing requirements; and
3. Emergency Management has certified that the road
is adequate for access by emergency vehicles; and
4 . At least 1/2 of the lots which are served by the
private road are already developed.
The Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendment on
October 16 and recommended that it be presented for
public hearing, with clarification that a road which
would function as a thoroughfare would not be approved
as a private road.
50
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS
The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in
Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots
served by the road. A Class C road serves 1 to 3 lots or dwelling units, a
Class B road serves 4 to 9 lots or dwelling units and a Class A road serves
10 to 25 lots or dwelling units. A Class AA road serves 26 to 50 lots.
Private roads serving 26 to 50 lots or dwelling units may be permitted only
if constructed to Class AA Arivate road standards. The Board of
Commissioners may approve a subdivision which results in a cumulative total
of 26 to 50 lots on a road which does not fully meet Class AA private road
standards if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The road existed prior to reffective date of ordinancel .
2 . The road exceeds standards required for a Class A private road in
either width or surfacing requirements.
3. Emergency Management has certified that the road is adequate for
access by emergency vehicles.
4 . _At least 1/2 of the lots which are served by the private road
are already developed.
Private roads serving more than 24 50 lots or dwelling units may be
permitted only if constructed to NCDOT public road standards.
All classes of private roads in a major (five or more lots) subdivision
require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Before the final plat
of the subdivision can be recorded, the private road must be built and
approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the County
in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road.
Class C private roads intended to serve 2 lots or dwelling units are not
required to be constructed to Orange County standards or to be inspected
before recordation of the final plat. However, Orange County recommends
that these Class C roads be built to these standards in order to provide
adequate access, especially for emergency vehicles which require the
clearances and turn areas shown on the specifications.
Surface Materials
PElvate Feads may be paved, pEevided that pavement design ( RabeE ais and
thieleness-)- meets NGDQT subdivislen stFeet tandaEdsT
The travelway of Class AA private roads shall be constructed with paved,
51
all-weather surfaces consisting of four (4) inches of base material
(crusher run) and 1-1/2 inches of 1-2-asphalt or tar and gravel surface
treatment consisting of a minimum of six (6) inches of base material
(crusher run) covered with alternating layers of tar and pea-sized gravel.
For Class A, B and C private roads, acceptable materials for surfacing the
travelway is Aggregate Base Course (commonly called "crusher run" ) . Soil
type base materials (commonly called "Chapel Hill Gravel" or "Chapel Hill
Grit" ) will be acceptable under the following conditions:
The material originates form a quarry approved by the North Carolina
department of Transportation.
The grade of the road is less than 8%.
Where the grade is greater than 8 percent a layer of crusher run
stone will be placed over the Chapel Hill Gravel before compaction.
Sources of surface material shall be verified with the certifying
professional before placement.
**********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 10, 1995
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW: