HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-94 - VIII-J 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 5, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # vla-cr
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
(Article 8 .8. 17 Radio, Television and Communication Towers,
and Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use)
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Proposed Amendment Ext. 2582
Map of Cellular Tower Sites
Draft 8-22-94 Public Hearing Minutes
9-14-94 Letter from David M. Rooks, III TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
9-19-94 Draft Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to add new requirements for additional
information and standards of evaluation regarding
communications towers.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of Adjustment has grown
increasingly concerned about the increasing number of
applications for communications towers. The Board has
reviewed five Special Use applications for towers since
1990. The concerns relate to the number of towers and
the reasons they cannot co-locate on an existing tower
in the vicinity. Generally there are good reasons why
towers cannot co-locate, i.e. , loading capabilities,
frequency incompatibility, and directional focusing of
signals. However, in some instances there may be
situations where towers can co-locate.
The proposed amendments would require an applicant to
first look into co-locating communication equipment on
an existing tower. if use of an existing tower was not
feasible, then approval of a Special Use Permit for a
new tower would be considered. However, permit
approval would include provisions related to the
2
sharing of space on the tower with other users in the
future.
Public Hearing Comments:
David Helms, with Cellular One, indicated his support
for the amendment but he was concerned about other
communications companies sharing their equipment
buildings.
Diane Shaw and Frances Douglass, both Board of
Adjustment members, spoke in favor of the amendment.
Paul Cook, a resident on Buckhorn Road indicated he
would like an amendment that would require gates at the
entrance road to the tower.
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment at
its September 19, 1994 meeting and unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed amendment
including a provision for a gate at the access entrance
to such facilities, and allowing the applicant the
option of leasing space within an equipment storage
area or building or providing separate facilities for
this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends ,approval of the proposed
amendment per the Planning Board recommendation.
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8 .8 . 17 RADIO, TELEVISION, AND
COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE
TANKS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _x_ Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To add new requirements for additional information and standards
of evaluation regarding communications towers to the Class B
Special Use section.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
The Zoning Ordinance does not presently address the location or
number of communications towers in the County. The Orange County
Board of Adjustment has grown increasingly concerned about the
number of communications towers they have seen applications for
recently. The Board has reviewed five Special Use applications
for towers since 1990. Four of these applications have been
approved. The concerns raised deal directly with the number of
towers and the reasons they cannot co-locate on an existing tower
in the vicinity. Generally, loading capabilities, frequency
incompatibility, and directional focusing of signals may keep
towers from co-locating. In these cases towers would be needed
to provide appropriate communications coverage. However, in some
instances there may be situations where towers can co-locate.
The proposed standards would require an applicant to first look
into co-locating on an existing tower and second where feasible
to provide lease space on their tower for other users.
If it is found to be feasible to lease space on an existing tower
instead of erecting an additional tower, the number of towers in
Orange County could be reduced.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
8.8.17 Radio,Television and Communication Towers, and Elevated
Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use)
4
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 siting and size of all existing and proposed
structures, existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of
five feet and any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the
presence of alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the
color and nature of all exterior material.
c) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing
and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials.
d: :«:::::>::<::If:; :;exist n :eommur icattozls to ver i lotted tn.too;: eneral. vicinit::::c f
the ,p ed<co ." unicatio`ns�>towe,
rQOse .......:
:<::::;» P ...P.......... ?m::;:::;>»»:::;»:;:: »::;::...r=....1 .itt shall attepaabn
s ice o f e i t ng towex.....A I t er indicating..this atte :t shall be
ubmitted with the application x atei is
e�:�>>�><> ���ternett>;utdt�a�tt the a l cast. ..wt�tut tc�lease � .ace..a�...tts
ti i'f ux ` :t n" t e `::444 `4thi crt ior>'::'C>t:61: e`
4. pli rtes ht::on a coillmereiali reasonable bads,.
t'k : 1:f fiti f Y1tist;ze: r,td?>strlF t€teat) :$ tort:>b :r4 ; > Ad tl «t ti
dd::r. . ;.;n. w ; 1 ::> n r.: , :<w: . :< z
�.:.: �na� se t?4? p� p� � nQ� �e�e�'� �tC
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,
afoc r the security of th e s i to
;> clud i»ng tt:e pvYon ; £
s er trance:of?:access:.reads:;lead ng:ter::st ch facl tties.
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.
: :«::::::::. dequate rovision has b made tp obta n:;;s ace on:an e t s€ €
arouuications tower to the'general vtcittity.
8-21
5
NV1 t t e':.$$ i ,1'se:Permm tA. ..Zzentzor nidicat i g:,:th:. .::...::1 e:_..it
:�:...:.;:v��::::::,:._;••iy:;ii:"::'.:::i.:..:�:.•.::;:..:. �s .:'�::i:.:-::::�:.' "�'�:::::.:��.��:: ::i•�':::-.:'::�':.:•:.!;i•:tii;i.:':.::.�:.i:.::i'::::�:S•4.v,..;,}�,
te .se spate o its towex ::..>::>:°:::>':.. on a_cereall
ea Ie:bas s:::p vi ed the additional t se. would not me ere wi
:;::ii::�>:>,::>>;:i:?ii:c:,•;:;:::::f:;:;i::'�4:: ;;:;:;;:.i ::;::%;:`;::ii'�'$k5:;:;:;:;yy;,•:<5::;ii "i�?ii??:>�:5i:';:::.;i2:�i+�!:iifii!;;2ia!iiii::;;:>:.:
r :asptes�tt s rise i s®1 m$ p °.: .
within an equip rent storage area or building or prc v ding separa
fa i t'es<'for`this:purpose_:
><< .;A. quate rovision has been.made for thy; communications tower to
support t e<>proposed<?se,; pl s pne add tt se€ rhkeb wtnutd not
************************************************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
8-22
G
4g .... ....- 1 Z ji,iiitiLladra y s 4 ., -'"'--,---7 t I
1-17'7 4.-/, --, r 1 'C' ' >Jr-11W/ '1,-iitif , - .." ''‘' gsr47Delimari.-- -
L. ' 1 /f„ ` �
'- '
1.1,;,k,,,?.‘ ...,,,T7,..'..,.....,oilk.,...."' 1---'-'") l-.. Al!ilij “. .-4: ,fif -,) I i -'' ''...‘I )\'?,7;"'1 ..1( -L-1 1.:
I .I ,1'6- . a..roar\ t 1, .-•,.... • ' \ e ' kiA'''i
- 1 ., '''.1,-. - '.._.„ivrvpr,101111. , ', 27 - '1/...„ -Ailkiril.;,,tr:::TPA.'71- INN.,. tit t
Ii .„,-/:-..--... ,,,;,...1/2--_- . ,, ,, -..,,,,,47,4riviwork _ _ -. . .- .
1 - '-,\I-- ' , - 40
_ . ; ...,::=. .. . _,,,,„„...
) ii , 4.-.....\IN4 Via . 1 -
t\ '-,;.:..-t':71k1 i_1. "V't.. 4i1P:it J
,.,..r Willf- _.--. . \., : --,-, , -..-... .. , i p, tr, e Alp," .--7.-.V
1 \ i '' ' ' '‘i .. 1116ThildEPIN.... 'idig --‘ 7..:..,;11-.- 1.. . - \. ---- :1
,A .' Apr Lc-- ,-,--,--..."-MomilW ) , ,,.1 Vics. . .,':,‘,...W.', ' .
..---- A .1j i...- -4 j- 1111. Ili*. __: "VI ibak_LW /if
i I : r ; ,1/1 ****4 s‘,l,,, ,\ 'r A'gia°Ell ' 7111t Aral! IIIIVIO-
___ , .... ___.... -114 • •
. .: -..dossurds. -%:. ,.. _V'fs..4.44112., ..a.,111,11.. fariAlir I `1
��' , ` CELLULAR TOWER SITES IN. - -l p.'''''' OI,I
] ~ / -
�� / ORANGE COUNTY
) ` ~^-~,......, , A 1 f,,.. .. i, , .7. .* 7er- t, 1.1,01N.4, pip tr— , fr_i_
- CELLULAR ONE TOWERS:
`���� � ' ' 1` ' ^ ' �/S 2' 5, G, 11, l2, l4 `•
��' n -r' '.' -- ' "
' . ^~_' '
------ � ` / CENTEL TOWERS:
~~~~ =-,--~� ��m�NN� �=��m ) ' 7 -' 7 8 9, 10, l'
_ ' -- �'� l, 3, 4. , , ' ' '
,_� _ - _ -' ___
` '
ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAR ==F��� CO^~~ "~, /
7
DRAFT
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING, AUGUST 22, 1994
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis,
2 to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
3 the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS ; .
5
6 b. Radio/TV Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks
7 This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of
8 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add
9 new requirements for additional information and standards of evaluation regarding
10 communications towers. Currently a Class B Special Use Permit is required. If
11 the Board of Adjustment determines that all of the Ordinance criteria is met, the
12 permit is approved. If the propoSed amendment is approved, towers would have to be
13 built to accommodate an additional use. The additional user would be responsible
14 for working out cost-sharing with the original owner .
15
16 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
17
18 Diane Shaw, an Orange County resident and member of the Board of Adjustment,
19 spoke in support of this proposal. She commented that citizens are concerned
20 about the frequency with which these towers are going up.
21
22 DavidHeame, with Cellular One, indicated that they would support this
23 proposal with one exception. He requested that each tower user be required to
24 build their own storage shed. It would not cause them a problem to have two sheds
25 at the base of the tower, however, they foresee difficulties if the same shed is
26 shared. He agreed to send the Planning Board an information report an these
27 , towers.
28
29 Frances Douglas, an Orange County resident and a member of the Board of
30 Adjustment, spoke in support of this amendment. She indicated that towers devalue
31 nearby residences. It is in the landowners and tower owners best interest to
32 combine uses on new towers.
33
34 Paul Cook, a Buck Horn Road resident, indicated that two towers are located
35 near his home. He requested that an =eminent be approved which would required
36 that tower access roads have gates installed in order to deter their use by
37 drinkers. He also requested that the County consider making this retroactive.
38
39 A motion was made by CommAssioner Halkiotis, seconded by Comrdssioner Insko,
40 to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
41 the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994.
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
43
44 c. Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects
45 This item was presented by IMary -Winis for the purpose of
46 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
47 a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a
48 use permitted by right in all zoning districts.
49
50 QUESTIONS AND/CR COMMENTS FROM TEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONS AND PLANNING BOARD
51
52. In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, MS. Willis indicated
53 that the Federal Government would not have to request the right to use land for a
54 borrow pit except in situations where they do not own the land.
8
NORTHEN, BLUE, ROOKS, THIBAUT, ANDERSON & WOODS, L.L.P,
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP �/�r I L_'{�
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ��`"�/��^�"
100 EUROPA DRIVE A-t6 -(4
SUITE 550 Iuryn1 /' `
JOHN A. NORTHEN CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 "�l1 MAILING ADDRESS:
J. WILLIAM BLUE, JR. P. 0. BOX 2208
DAVID M. ROOKS, III CHAPEL HILL, NC 27515-2205
CHARLES H. THIBAUT
CHARLES T.L. ANDERSON September 14, 1994
JO ANN RAGAZZO WOODS
TELEPHONE (919) 968-4441
CAROL J. HOLCOMB
JAMES C. STANFORD TELEFAX(919) 942-6603
CHERYL Y. CAPRON
GREGORY HERMAN-GIDDENS
Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman
Orange County Commissioners
200 S. Cameron Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Moses:
I write on behalf of Dial Call, Inc. to request a meeting with the appropriate county
officials to discuss more effective ways of denting with applications to construct cellular and
digital relay towers.
The zoning ordinance currently makes towers Class B Special Uses requiring a special
use permit from the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is governed by the
extraordinary majority requirement of the statute such that it can only issue special use
permits upon the affirmative vote of four of the Board's five members. As a result, any
given application is unusually susceptible to denial in the face of even minimal levels of
neighborhood opposition. This is compounded by the concern voiced by some members of
the Board that there has been an unnecessary proliferation of towers in recent years.
•
The Planning Department is attempting to address the proliferation problem with a
text amendment now making its way through the process which would require tower
'operators to share towers with other cellular and digital relay systems. This proposal is
h1 C_ far I .1.. t think it will resolve the problem roll recently
elpful as 141 QJ it goes, but I do 11V1 ll'lllli� 1L W111 LVJCIYV the problem. Dial v..a• vn.�
had an application turned down by the Board despite the fact that it had documented its
unsuccessful efforts to share space on nearby towers and had announced its willingness to
accept a condition of its special use permit requiring it to share the tower with other users.
This decision was reversed on appeal to Superior Court and the County is appealing this
result to the Court of Appeals.
If the citizens of Orange County want reliable cellular telephone and digital relay
services, and I believe they do, we are going to have to accept a certain number of relay
towers, shared or otherwise, in and around urban areas and along the major transportation
corridors. The apparent randomness of decisions by the Board of Adjustment makes meeting
the public demand for these services extraordinarily difficult.
I believe the County would be better served if, in addition to requiring tower sharing,
we were to make cellular and digital relay towers uses of right in certain key areas in order
to assure minimal levels of service. Failing some sort of change in existing policy to
9
NORTHEN, BLUE, ROOKS, THIBAUT, ANDERSON & WOODS, L.L.P.
Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman
September 14, 1994
Page 2
rationalize the process, tower owners will be forced to litigate every adverse decision of the
Board of Adjustment as Dial Call is now doing which serves neither the public nor tower
operators.
My client would very much like to meet with you, the County Manager, the Planning
Director and any other representative of the County to discuss means of addressing this
problem.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
NORTHEN, BLUE, ROOKS, THIBAUT,
ANDER• ► WOODS, L.L.P.
.avi• . • , III
DMR/tpj
cc: Mr. John Link
Mr. Marvin Collins
Mr. Eddie Kirk
Mr. Bill Waddell
Mr. Jerry Martin
Mr. Mashaal Ahmadieh
10
Draft 9-19-94 Planning Board Minutes
Zoning text or map changes which involve a
particularly large area (such as the recent
watershed protection amendments and zoning of
Little River and Cedar Grove Townships) could be
advertised at less cost for materials and staff
time.
The proposed amendment was presented for public
hearing August 22, 1994 . One citizen spoke in
opposition to the proposed amendment and one
letter expressing opposition has been received.
The Board of Commissioners indicated that mailing
notices to individual property owners resulted in
better communication than would occur by relying
newspaper advertisement.
This item was presented at public hearing
specifically to obtain citizen comment on
notification requirements. Given the desire of
citizens as well as the governing board to
continue with notice-by-mail, the Planning Staff
recommends that the proposed amendment not be
approved.
Burklin asked about recent mailings and costs.
Willis responded that there were two this year
that had been at least 10,000 pieces. Burklin
continued that the difference in cost was not
substantial.
Waddell noted that the greatest cost seemed to be
Staff time.
MOTION: Burklin moved in favor of the Planning Staff 's
recommendation that the proposed amendment not
be approved. Seconded by Scott.
Barrows asked for clarification. Willis
responded that notification would remain as is:
notification by mail to individual property
owners.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Waddell) .
(2) Radio/TV Towers & Elevated Water Storage
Tanks
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to add new requirements for
additional information and standards of
evaluation regarding communications towers.
11
The Orange County Board of Adjustment has grown
increasingly concerned about the increasing
number of applications for communications towers.
The Board has reviewed five Special Use
applications for towers since 1990. The concerns
relate to the number of towers and the reasons
they cannot co-locate, i.e. , loading
capabilities, frequency incompatibility, and
directional focusing of signals. However, in some
instances there may be situations where towers
can co-locate.
The proposed amendments would require an
applicant to first look into co-locating
communication equipment on an existing tower. If
use of an existing tower was not feasible, then
approval of a Special Use Permit for a new tower
could be considered. However, permit approval
would include provisions related to the sharing
of space on the tower with other users in the
future.
At the public hearing, David Helms, with Cellular
One, indicated his support for the amendment but
he was concerned about other communications
companies sharing their equipment buildings.
Diane Shaw and Frances Douglass, both Board of
Adjustment members, spoke in favor of the
amendment.
Paul Cook, a resident on Buckhorn Road, indicated
he would like an amendment that would require
gates at the entrance road to the tower.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment including a provision for a
gate at the access entrance to such facilities,
and allowing the applicant the option of leasing
space within an equipment storage area or
building or providing separate facilities for
this purpose.
Burklin stated that he liked the emphasis on
co-locating towers. Waddell agreed, noting that
the Board of Adjustment also agreed with co-
locating towers. Waddell continued that he also
liked the idea of gates at the access entrance.
MOTION: Burklin moved approval of the Planning Staff's
,recommendations. Seconded by Barrows.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(Rosemond out of the room during this vote. )