Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-27-1995 - C-4-a c 1 4 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 27, 1995 Action Agenda Item# C-4-cL. SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Telecommunication Towers DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING—X—Yes No ATTACB31EENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Proposed amendment Extension 2583 Map of Existing Tower Sites American Planning Association Report TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Opposition to FCC Preemption Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill-967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication towers. BACKGROUND: The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted in a number of other jurisdictions, 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. i 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 minimizes 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. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However,Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case,though,the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's Recommendation. Zoning Officer Recommendation Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers ARTICLE 4.3 Permitted Use Table ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff' Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1995 CURRENT REGULATIONS Telecommunications towers are allowed in all residential zoning districts and most non-residential zoning districts upon approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Adjustment. On October 5, 1994,the Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to require applicants to first attempt to lease antenna space on an existing tower, and to agree to lease space to other potential users on the future if a new tower is approved. The amendment was initiated by the Planning Staff in response to concerns expressed by the Board of Adjustment and Planning Board. The intent of the amendment was to minimise 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. 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 3 144 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 t 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 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 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. 4 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. 5 146 • Chaavel 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. • 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 1600 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. 6 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 fords 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, Ore¢on 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. a 148 • Jefferson County, Colorado 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 wit color that minimises 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. 8 14 ENT G CELLULAR TOWERS IN ORANGE COUNTY Number Applicant Tower Comments Height 1 Sprint/Centel unknown re-dates zoning Haig 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 IL 12 Sprint Cellular 200 Scheduled for Board of Adjustment (A-2-95) 10/9/95 9 150 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. straAmpe to suppert the prepesed use,plus one add-itue—asal imsee w-h-w-h-qMauld t4at kaiap&pp 404th tile aPge4V1L-.- 8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application for approval: a) Adequate provision has been made,by means of fencing or otherwise,for the security of the site, including the provision of a gate at the access entrance of access roads leading to such facilities. b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use. c) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of adjacent property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces to public health and safety. Rwe es an existing eemmuaiestiess te-up-a-1 k- the general 44sky, e) If a eemmaielw as tower is proposed a sit-st-m-Ment &-A- be iffidud-ed-with the SpeeW Use Pemi 10 . j 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 11 152 of each rejected response. For responses rejected due to structural limitations, the explanation 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. I 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. 12 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. 13 � s o F-- 154 t + N m Al m x « N N M m m Ic t m M + N .i N m to Ic m + # N M N N N O t + x m # # # O W pq U U U �N NMj R t V N!N pq N to N W N M E 0 110 W a u .� 0 orals 0 w a Rm to � 4ul a m m Ic « m « a aUu W N N M a m m Ic 4. m + x cc M + am a Ln a a n !a m m � « m t • a N a .r In t-14 w m 0A at N E • .1 Y1 M, .1 • • 's •i x w +•+ 0 � �' a •m 0 m r h.i Nl'1 3C 14 0 0 N# C 4 C .c -•1 • r4 .4 N • 0 O Ii i C -4 0 G O U • �4• C 4 47 N L Y • 4 U O.� r7 U Na C 4 0 U m •.k U U.+ C C .4 O 4 Na C • Q -.1 41 y1 C .-� C •1 -4.-I 4 0 m >• O • O • 4.-I C 4 4 m 4 C.0 C 4 A-4 w V > ..I -4 • a+..I 4 LI • E E E a+ 4 +�+� • Y • C 0 CO to w • O 10 U: .C4Cp 4 .4 W �g MZ � 4 � C a O .44 0 .4t 0 0.4 O .C'A L .0 C p A -4 m >w y@ gg 01.0 •• • C U U U 0 0 w C C 0 W 4 7 �N to Etn ENa aN to a to to ZU E DN 00 3a U I` t, r% m m O .4 .ai N to s N 10 ~ "4 N •'I •4 N N N N N N N N a a a a a a a a a s a a a JUNE 1993 ; 15 JO ZONIAM AMERICAN PLANNING czKewsA,,0C,AT,0N Local Planning Issues in end of last year.That, in turn, has expanded the number of Siting Cellular Towers cellular transmission situ to 17,920 last December from just g 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, deal with siting issues. we have tried to cull examples of regulatory techniques specific Camorged cellular The industry's growth 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 NIr. governments'ability to P ublic utilities agencies.Planners should learn their state's aesthetic zoning issues 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 �:,.._ w hasty,reactionary public in order to make room for budding cellular telecommu- -"17 regulation.To avoid writing nications technology.Through the mid-1980s,the industry bad law,some communities worked to develop higher-quality transmission devices.Cellular have instituted siting technology as first marketed to consumers in the form of the f, ;.. - `'�� gY x- -y s. 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—towers that had to be erected somewhere in the ;. regulations char 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. derail 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 co 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 chat cellular expressed opposition to such preemption. In March,executive technology added an average of 7,300 users per day in 1992, director Michael Barker cold the FCC that local communities bringing the U.S. total to about 10 million.Those numbers and planners are in the best position to balance their concerns have continued to grow, reaching more than 24 million by the with the needs of the cellular industry.The National � r Association of Telecommunications Officers and and lattice,or self-support cowers,which have three or four Administrators, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National sides of open-framed steel supports.Some cellular antennas can League of Cities,and the National Association of Counties have occupy space on ocher types of communication cowers when the filed similar objections. engineering is feasible.This is known as using a donor site to troubleshoot a small gap or dead spot within the grid.A micro- Nature of the 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 roofsops 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 pan of an evolving cell grid. technology improves, the trend toward shorter towers and less 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 descina- cion 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 sort of requirement for capacity.Cellular tower technology differs from satellite, maintaining existing vegetation or installing landscaping for the microwave,or land-based communications in char it is based on purpose of screening the base of the cower and the storage a network of short-range cell sites with a fixed capacity.If the building.Towers 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, char 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 cower 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 pan. 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 cowers. concerns.Most are expressed as a percentage of the cower 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 (T1he 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 co 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,bur have a lower service demand,and are known Safery-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 towers vary with their design.At most, they also vary according to engineering requirements for a specific site will collapse to a distance equal to their full height, 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-sranding cellular towers County,Kentucky,setback provisions are designed with falling (monopoles),there arc guyed cowers(anchored with guy wires) zones in mind: 2 s ) w/ Towers 100 feet or more in height shall be located on the lot so watts, the typical cell sire 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 cower 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 b the federal requirement.Towers less than 100 feet in height that cannot Y satisfy this 100 percent setback requirement may be approved government. For more information about the relationship of 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 Sc., 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 chat use non-ionizing EMFs. considered acceptable levels of electromagnetic radiation. Oldham County;Jefferson County,Colorado; Multnomah For More Information County, Oregon;and King County,Washington,all have specific provisions related to the electromagnetic fields(EMFs) on EMFs • • • generated by the new cower.Thc�efferson County ordinance requires a complete non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER)analysis with every cower application. o assist local governments in developing regulations for siting cellular towers,the American Electromagnetic Fields atignal Standards institute has published the The health risks associated with EMFs have been the second tandds 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 CHz, 1992(ANSUIEEE C.95.1-1992 perceived impact on property values. EMFs are divided into two (Redeu4nation as ANSUIEEE C95.1-1991().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(ANSUIEEE 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-crated 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,1979,scientists have conducted more than 1,000 a good source for general information on the regulation of radio and television towers is PAS Report studies,some of which have linked non-ionizing 11384,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 M435,£lectroma g netic power lines and communication antennas,have also been found Ids and land-Use Controls,by inconclusive because they were unable to isolate their findings a Matthe Connelly( hi ` to a single EMF source.This is because most homes are 8 iggi). !' , equipped with a variety of modern appliances that generate PI ers. varying EMF levels. No scientific study has shown a specific o 03.V2 correlation between cancer and the NIER levels geaerued by a cellular communication facility or device.Likewise,no scientific 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 Colocatiom 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-emicted 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 coloration 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 coloration and new construction,and any approval requirements.Though too detailed to list here, they FCC limitations on rower sharing. present acceptable levels of NIER exposures from cowers Many ordinances name the regional or state communications operating at various frequencies. division responsible for tracking the availability of suitable Of all transmitting facilities,cellular towers typically operate sharing space on towers. Local regulations should be developed at the lowest power levels.While a television cower emits up to in tandem with such agencies. In Palm Beach Count Florida 5 million watts,and commercial radio stations up to 100,000 tower applicants must send a certified mail announcement co all 3 other tower users in the area,scaring their siting needs and/or Where the site abuts or has access co 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 chose communities that require parking, the ocher our of territory.The ordinances for Jefferson County, L_ provision applies to an overall"communication cower facility" Oldham Counry_Mulcnomah County,and Palm Beach_County ordinance in which spaces are required only when the o.fFer-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 cowers is chat any new or modified towers be certified by an engineer accord- required when the cower is tall enough to concern the Federal ing to structural standards for antennas offered by either the Elec- Aviation Administration (FAA).Jefferson Parish acknowledges Ironic Industries Association or the Telecommunication Industry FAA regulations and the privacy of neighboring property owners: Association.Inspection schedules seem to vary widely according to When lighting is required and is permicred by the Federal the type of tower,as in this provision from Jupiter,Florida: Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority,is Inspections—The town council may require periodic inspections shall be oriented inward so as not co 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 cowers—ac least once certification of the tower application by their local airport every five yeah;c)guyed cowers—ac least once every three years. authority.This provision is from Palm Beach County: Inspections shall be conducted by an engineer licensed by the stare 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.Baud 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 nor determined to be a hazard by the FAA... a communication cower. (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 scare 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 rime in [Tlhese facilities may not include offices,long-term vehicle which an unused rower 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 char 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 Loc 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 is requires m any tower Equipment at a transmission facility shall be automated co the - applicant,and its provisions demonstrate serious research by the greatest extent possible to reduce craffrc and congestion.The planning department and other local agencies.Review of!his applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs, ordinance and its acccoomp nit"Low Power Mobile Radio including frequency of service,personnel needs,equipment ommunications Land Use Plan Addendum°is recommended needs,and traffic,noise,or safe impacts of such maintenance. - cY� P !•o�anyone dealing with cellular siting is-sties. 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, one so far as to ay for retainin a Trd- a consultant co William R.Klein,Director of Research. $ f P g hi nY P Zoning News is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor.Michael Barrette.Dan Biver.Fay review anything they have helped draft.These firms target sires Dolnick.Michelle Gregory.Sanjay Jeer,Beth McGuire,Marys Morris.Chris Smith, for acquisition based on their topographic efficiency, choir Reporters;Cynthia Cheski.Assistant Editor,Lisa Barton.Design and Production. accessibility by road, the availability of elearie power and land- Copyright©1995 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St.,Chicago.IL based telephone lines, their leasabiliry,preexisting vegetation and 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 17-6 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 char 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 •' i ALci-01-1995 08:33 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO INSPECTIONS P.02/03 SONIC NORTH CAROLDiA Scenic Alert--July 311, 1995 ,6,d Tafty to Mabob Low contrd of Towers" pAmws&o wAis4W*wk gwMV4 arcaetW=atpos*k- ba wousom a majarc rervrioe of as bw bays beta mov ftvoo wa tits Hum and SC011& n. fit=_:-mim AR_ l'���_ •�+**s we�nre�ia•art� #M 1353 WM be b oogbt m do am as ar dw*afar AWK 1.TM pt WWM jpo� t:apposed b,1bC rktioaat Aasodatia�of CvaOtits.� awksNam of maNyoa,the tow a of C Wm wd the Anlmdm Pbmdm Asaodaciaa'17k20 is ecpecaed mbe ao�atoeodmeaNt aNfderad an the fluor m asodify Pte• 3sti1l�+Oier>� Pleaaa oo�tyoaNr Qa�t+esaiooal t�ve by pboma aNr faa:Hecaoae the a,1oo I oil I tim M is nok a vW piM of legtdmaoaN, members of dte HOW of Repreaeostiveo am not as tbbf loom All coogn=ioeai d5M cm be wadwd by 2�37a-3121: _ • Opp=T5de I, 9CR Nf71tiQ®i1 Locd main$ mac iij i0 =d the KC dwmog1► maid v-f0a 100 xadw 1 poscy on do Of oammoN ncaioa OQ Nets.7i4%void remove local domd odkbis and tat WM fk=deciaM aooesa, sday =am= tag.+ aad b appeusea.and nmkk is me oicoQiaaMaiatfiaa • t7pp M Tift 4 SM 303 the I= to in= IcPbattalloa PmbM rag local �onraoa�►>3tm coNOQOlIiaNp the plama�eas a£sar�ee dbA aaae0aai. • Cfpm rz L&a.107 n ktLg to the wo atlbdeial pvparNq►,rigba-of-way,and eseeomft -- _ —by rs'acaamneasocatitNNss pcflniden.Mb lupw an"a ieW ptemtttptioa dtta sB fiediNd peas mat to had w 0oo*o&s qek= da abcbed fodetal *my an In" an dbect coamt bettmap Sta hft and ft agmcy's wAmim hmarmt f'acm soeit as aeNiNNNtl�tae not a vdid cood&ndm mler d&bw stanft&Tbis Imm"m fiL& to arAnu -b* ft aA&dent paop-do s amt in s roar caomt- ad that ham sods as aeafte"Na1mp tK oa p Lip rft sbootid fo caoddatid. • SNappaeNt pin 1* v m s*ftw pvfisioas Am RR. M and miaat w lmd SoTeama em Fars mwAWD*MeXedat(919)M3W. M w.70 3tNrsmt.lR xid • 1►Jn:lfaoc�i - ltalN�3py 1i.C.3Ti�3 • �►$ f 9U d3�.�7'1! ra�aKas�tO�f1WOl i •* AUG-81-1995 08:35 FROM ORPWIE CTY COM I SS I a ERS TO INSPECTIONS P-03/03 TER & ds want • McMAY.AU 3 1,1495 >' :.%. � ' '• �'=�;". Ar coutt6l &tm t6w JL n, loom=babe vmjt sly s dd Nil a aoee ae�ie.a+remus ieMONSOON& D ►Till /i�old�[� ,��je�iMia nurse,a W"96 11�,�mR�ieims..loesre ���"� � Abe am fag �s ; i1°"� it see+t be m bds wsnet ampadae too!ar posit Ad�feess tia aac!<ta oeabszeei "6901P& bfoQdstaa�esbt_tbahaaiwbae- OeWd 7!tlis�+bC Is a q�b ~Ywcat I�w to iolNttoepeladlbe MWltrbobso[a■ihwrt. Imso asa ewia�+etss!/eaad iov�it n�Ot snw f:1z's.iR &� saefd+■e wwY 6e► - .awl i eoaaMR° add Iii Fhe b=ur aW--a WI.t+. �mat dodo we maw-cohm •btd�n. b�s��� "��+t�va�s� A anoel�e ItloeoeearieasfiMr< [ _ bltosar.oed�#ls.ap thvtip btH IF ft va Von F!r + t ale a„c ue �. dW Rdd �:yaw�r•e.:p+ffoevyR feed salts_ "'!!ta'a.�e,iwlRs,arapp..e�i .a:c�asic ftr�o.fit e�ino�. " reioias i 1t*.� taia¢easb�eitefaq�RwioR � . aE aissalar dweee�. as std Midi be/low hr aadt H DMd A ft avm-it tookooft&wow sa mm lead• WNW!n ' lad raeat+eHrd �"�wtd. t�►CitmdtTio ��� wltl • shnsw SON" bm.A �t �• � bt' the wooer tY � E ad s3oioam+t�s4 OWN bm bm At had 41 t taweea.w! f l ma ft aw poa sway -- at Aft ft in Daftm staitiw has «s m roptets �eore�..pstatif' tai ran" 16 ft apps"d U bum oitaa 4K boa At a dm Wi�' ^ �',' Jeow N-io>dt wbps Wes, l. 'h S*tnr ottnlfttttaiabnw nitii a ion. a>toot s :!�'�r s►t+a,wiri��re ttiat'�t�a�ttws aa� �'@C';. ak7npolle mrdo iaa itioe�fKOP�K tas aoeQST is Qta•)lair . r. tbie�. ooatai sett wit lbotvr mom. test ►Ibiboat� �' :+ iaLi[etis7bitea�eAoaotttisbs8: Pa�webtiral�a�r���y,' titlydar tawq; frill tneo-s in fits w Mir�■tl�s mereler - T psi }!.3 `ice- P. flora► D•11i•�fetn�iaout a of Mir Pts�ae aier rtaiMntsi .arnr�r s�dlst Isla!wail/nor tta« mew � bird �4'��easd !ns o[ ooiWlar tastes s led tswlt."paflle feel M5w how Ide st f � d 7ft nkm _� ��OodCe ei b�'1. rim tr Sm& piom o wnptt�t-� +•.ma b*d tl imm at dw 10 �� vjWPMWa-.udw an tie bfL `CqO MUWW A*0.M"I• tadaetp it�tie0id�e��oI led i ii.�evtldee titp:,i t 60• d�it+eeti.In a�at.lse.. �s n dV wwAl dusp- >�t>oe�ew.a��eraQ.sQ! II !f appnws of"ieq'� fe0e1811aatt1dl�iedaYraoar use 11r �eried me wt_ROM orliwis•• mow: iereeb a/ awa.w.aifsallri of Aslled AAeeidl!at �� iM seltt■r aotewdr' .steed oMdilMeeli to f111�!>rpat �#elmiestri . , :x x slw■&.MM wr ta��oi. aer{R ie lie iiwimS, a Wail wfeKm�» TOM R.03 TOTAL P.03 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. � r �l 16 4. THENM&O&M MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1995 Federal-local battle reaches new heights A bill in Congress would counterpro ductive." make N more difficult for o(Rep- local local governments to restrict resentatives this past summer it is construction of towers for now being reconciled with a Senate cellular hones. bill that does not include the new P restrictions on municipalities. BY YONM SMMRON "I would be very disappointed if the STAFF WRITER federal government takes that plan- While the telecommunications ning right away from the city,"saiid industry is battling for the rights to Enc a council mem- build more cellular towers,a nation- ber who led the charge to change the al survey just released,shows that zonmg regulations to create incen- 92 percent of these prickly poles are tives for the telecommunications approved by local governments. industry to locate towers in com- '1'he survey by the American plan- mercial rather than residential ning Association shows that in 230 neighborhoods. cities and counties across the coun- - " ocafbodies tend to be more sen- try,cellular towers are approved in sitive.Vk don't want these towers all less than 60 days.The results of the over our neighbothoods.11 survey come at a time when the In the American planning Associ- industry is try- atiods survey,76 percent of the eom- mg to restrict the rights of munici- mumties said they were streamlin- palities to dear applications for cel- ing their application -- -- --- - ——- aplicaioII ��to -�pl — help tTe industry - ---- - get towers - ---- A federal bill now in conference approved in less than three monft committee seeks to limit the power--- A SvefokUncrease in the number of communities to turn down tower of towel's is expected before theyear applications.If the bill becomes law, 2000.Durbam has OIN 43 such tow- a municipality thatwantedtodegya ers and Raleigh 26 since the tech- -- wer application would need to nology emerged in the mid-Us. show substantial evidence for the "We have a society that tries to denial or face a legal challenge. meet consumer demand," said The industry lobbied hard for the Matthew Andrews,who served on bill, insisting municipalities were the task force that recommended thwarting tower applications.Com- tighter tower regulations for Raleigft panes surveyed by the Cellular "Concerns lika aesthetics and safety hxhs <yAsso- are often perceived as being sec- ciation said the average approval ondary." took five months and 11 percent took Municipalities across the nation more than a year;said spokesman are fighting the proposed regulatians, 111<ic�ael Houghton. through such agencies as the "It takes us quite a long time, National Association of Counties, sornetimesyears,to getthese towers which opposes the tougher restrio- sited," said Steve Fleischer, Bell how mimcgxditie& Atlantic Corp.man."And cus- But there's been little citizen tomers are demanding service." protest so far But Jan Rothschild of the Ameri- "State and local governments can Planning Association said the understand what's happening"said industry's quest is unfounded. Susan Notkins,a board member of "We feel the claims of denial and the Potomac Conservancy,a non- delays are wildly exaggerated in profit land trust that wants to pro- order to serve a political purpose," tect the landscape from towers."The Rothschild said "The pre-emption public doesiY't understand vpt-M—t-