Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-12-2006-8aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ACTION ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 12, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. ~-a _ SUBJECT: Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (PEMC) Planned Development (PD-OI) and Special Use Permit, Class A DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: (Under Separate Cover) 1) Planned Development Amendment Resolution 2) Recommended Findings of Planning Board with Supporting Data for the Planned Development Amendment •3) SUP Resolution 4) Exhibit A Recommended Findings of Planning Board with Supporting Data for the Special Use .Permit 5) PEMC Environmental Assessment with Supporting Data 6) Legal Advertisement 7) Notice to Property Owners with Documentation 8) Property Posting 9) Technical Data. Supporting Application 10) September 14, 2006 BOCC Resolution and Time Line • 11) The Center for Municipal Solutions Report 12) 1/26/06 Annual Telecommunications Meeting Notes 13) Tower Bond & Tower Removal Agreement 14) Real Estate Valuation Report 15) Site Plans 16) October 3, 2006 Special Public Hearing and November 1, 2006 Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director, 245 2592 Glenn R. Bowles, Planner II, 245 2577 PURPOSE: To consider the Planning Board recommendations regarding the PEMC request to amend- its Planned Development -Office/Institution (PD-OI) zoning district and its Class A PURPOSE: To consider the Planning Board recommendations regarding the PEMC request to amend its Planned Development -Office/Institution (PD-OI) zoning district and its Class A Special Use Permit to permit the principal use of a 350-foot replacement tower at its administrative and operations center located at 2500 NC Highway 86 South, Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: On October 3, 2006 at a special, joint public hearing, the BOCC referred this item to the Planning Board for its recommendation. Issues revealed at the October 3 Public Hearing include the following topics (The responses to the questions are in italics.): 1. The applicant would like to construct a higher tower to provide better coverage, to better communicate with the other towers, and to transfer data between its three offices. 2. What impact will the proposed tower have on migratory bird patterns? The applicant does not believe the impact will be significant. The proposed tower is self-supporting and does not require guy wires. The lighting is a white strobe fixture with long periods. A self-supporting tower has a less fatal effect on birds than a guyed tower and white lights, with a long strobe period have less negative effect on birds than the normal red lights with a short period. The County's tower consultant stated that if guy wires were used for this project, then there would be more reason for concern about the tower's impact on migratory birds. The consultants recommend that the lighting, be shielded because of the bird attraction and ground scattering of the light. The replacement tower's impact on aviary wildlife raised no concerns from the consultant's viewpoint. 3. What effect will the electronic emissions have on the human population in the neighborhood? The replacement tower will be using the same frequency as is presently used, but with less power. The tower is nearly double the vertical distance as the present antenna. The County's consultant estimated that a tower of the height proposed for this project will result in negligible human exposure to radio frequency emissions. The tower consultant advised that the FCC has pre-empted local enforcement or enactment of electro-magnetic tower antenna emissions standards. Any facility located on a tower that is more than 10 meters above the ground is "categorically excluded" from local review according to FCC regulations. However, local governments are vested with the authority to verify that a tower is operated in compliance with FCC regulations. A condition of the SUP approval is that the tower emissions are regularly tested to insure compliance with applicable regulations. 4. Questions were raised concerning the balloon test, the notification procedures, and the time of day the test took place. Board members did not like the quality of the photographs used in the information packet. It was suggested that County rules governing notification and the specifics of the balloon test be reviewed. The balloon test was held on a Monday from 8:00 am to 1:00 p.m., one hour longer than required. All property owners within 1,000 feet of the 35-acre Piedmont property were notified by registered mail, as is required. The second legal notification (for the Public Hearing) was also sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Piedmont property, as is required. 5. Co-location is a possibility. Is the tower structure designed to accommodate such additional loads? The tower is designed to support four additional co-location facilities. 6. Is the tower proposed for public safety and is it a public need (necessity)? It is the burden of the applicant to prove that the replacement tower will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property unless the use is found to be a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The review process was expedited because of the public health, safety and welfare benefits the proposed replacement tower presents. The applicant must prove either that the replacement tower is a public necessity or that the construction of the replacement tower 4 will maintain or enhance contiguous property values in order for the Board to approve the SUP. 7. Can the tower withstand hurricane strength winds? When designing a tower, engineers look at the soils first and then work up to the top of the structure. Towers fail if there is a fault in the foundation. About 400 towers a year fail. The tower was over-designed and there was a break point built in to the design. The applicant is requesting an amendment to its existing PD zoning district and the associated Class A Special Use Permit under Articles 7.2-(.3) (.5) and 8.8.17a of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a 350-foot replacement tower: On January 4, 1983, the BOCC approved Piedmont's facility upon the 33.92 acres tract of land as a PD-OI (Planned Development -Office /Institutional), with the associated Special Use Permit, Class A. The Special Use Permit specified that its approval be "in accordance with the Proposed Headquarters Building Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation Site Plan dated November 8, 1982." At the October 3, 2006 Special Public Hearing, the BOCC referred the Piedmont requests to the Planning Board for their review and recommendations. The Planning Board considered the Piedmont requests at their regular November 1, 2006 meeting and voted unanimously to: 1. Accept the Planning Staff findings of fact for both the amended Planned Development and the Class A SUP. 2. ,Affirm that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan, as submitted. 3. Affirm that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous, property. 4. Affirm that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in County regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. Recommend the BOCC adopt the. resolution to approve an ordinance for a zoning atlas amendment for. an amended Planned Development district of Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation. 6. Recommend the BOCC adopt the resolution to approve an ordinance for a Special Use Permit, Class A for Planned Development-Office Institutional of Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation for offices and a telecommunications tower greater than 150' in height. Minutes from the October 3 Special Joint Public Hearing and the November 1 Planning Board meeting are attached. Conditions of the original 1983 approval for the PD-OI district and SUP were: 1. That all signs for the development shall be according to Section 7.16 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation plans shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The installation of control devices.and on going construction work shall be inspected by Orange County. The site shall at all times conform to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 3. That the proposed dumpster be placed on a 10' x 20' concrete pad 6" thick, with wire mesh. 4. That the service entrance from NC-86 to the entrance gate into the storage yard be paved to NC Department of Transportation Secondary road standards. 5. That the developer marks the 100' buffer on the perimeter of the site and take precautions to insure that the grading contractor does not disturb the area. 6. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are to be maintained on file with the Orange County Planning Department. -Only those uses specified in the project narrative and on the site plan, including but not limited to the offices, warehousing, maintenance service and outside storage of utility materials will be permitted at the office facility. All improvements as indicated shall be constructed according to the construction schedule set forth in this permit. 7. The following construction schedule shall be adhered to by the applicant. Construction shall begin within six months of the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 8. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 9. That the site plan be revised to adhere to the recommendations contained in a letter dated December 15, 1982 from S. H. Jones, District Engineer, NCDOT. 10. That the lighting shall be shaded and shielded so it does not produce glare in surrounding neighborhoods. On June 30, 1983, subsequent to the rezoning action, a small portion of property owned by PEMC located across NC Highway 86 from the PEMC offices was merged with the Wildwood residential subdivision. In exchange for that portion across NC Highway 86, PEMC received approximately one acre of land adjacent to the PEMC offices. This property has now been merged with the PEMC tract at issue in this rezoning application. The subject tract now consists of approximately 34.737 acres. On April 2, 1984, the BOCC approved a Class B Special Use Permit to erect a 150' tower on the PEMC tract. PEMC now wants to construct a 350-foot replacement tower for the purposes of updating its total communications system throughout Orange, Person, and Caswell counties. New towers in Caswell and Person counties have already received local approvals. This new proposed tower will allow PEMC to complete improvements to its radio coverage across its service territory and to better coordinate storm restorations and routine field communications. The Department of Homeland Security Maintenance has defined the PEMC trunked radio communication system as critical infrastructure because, if severely damaged, there would be a significant impact on the ability to serve large quantities of customers for an extended period of time. Such damages would have a detrimental impact to the reliability or operability of the energy grid, and could cause significant risk to public health, safety and welfare. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has permitted three new radio frequencies for the facility. PEMC has requested an extension of its FCC license for the tower. (Please refer to pages 89 and 92 for the FAA and FCC approval.) SUP approval will facilitate the processing of the FAA and FCC approval applications. When this new PEMC tower is operational, the LAWS tower, located in the Hurdle Mills neighborhood in the northern part of the County, will be available for other public and private communication antennas. The North Carolina Highway Patrol VIPER 800 mega hertz communication system has requested co-location of the LAWS tower. This will allow multiple public agencies, such as the NC Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff's Departmenfi, and EMS to better communicate during emergencies such as hurricanes and ice storms. PEMC has offered its existing tower, after de-construction, to the Orange County EMS facility on New Hope Church Road. If this happens, it would be a cost savings to the County. PEMC has also offered free co-location space on the replacement tower to the County Sheriff's Office and to EMS. If EMS communications systems are co-located on the replacement tower, then EMS will improve its communications system and allow for better use of the. VIPER system tower on Eno Mountain. The County Information Technology Department is interested in establishing campus-to-campus network connections using tower-mounted equipment. The use of the existing tower for County purposes once that tower is deconstructed and relocated could be an important first step in acquiring tower access rights for the implementation of the campus-to-campus network. As access rights are negotiated for other towers in the County, the Information Technology Department could replace leased fiber lines. and provide more reliable network availability during emergencies. Ordinance references Article 7.2.3 of the Orange County Zoning Regulations states that "if the petitioner elects to apply for a Planned Development District the petition must specify the actual use(s) intended for the property specified in the petition and the intended use(s) must be permitted in the corresponding general use district" and that "in the petition for a Planned Development District, the County Commissioners are to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the petition on the basis of the proposed site plan and the specific proposed use." The petitioner has designated Offices and Telecommunications Tower (greater than 150 feet in height) as the principal uses. Pursuant to .Article 7.2.3, "any change in the use shown on the plan will be treated as an amendment to the Planned Development as set forth in Article 7.8." The PD-OI District is being, amended by adding the use of Telecommunication Tower (greater than 150' in height) and also by adding the acre parcel that was not a part of the original SUP legal description. Article 7.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "within the Planned Development District only those uses authorized, by Article 4 as permitted in the zoning district with which the PD corresponds shall be permitted, and all other requirements of the corresponding district shall be met." Only the two uses set forth in the petition (offices and telecommunication-tower greater than 150 feet) are proposed; all other district. requirements will be met. Further, Article 7.2.5 specifies, "Within a PD no use shall be permitted except pursuant to a Special Use Permit authorized by the County Commissioners which shall specify the use or uses authorized as required in Article 8.8.23." The uses must be specified in the Special Use Permit, Class A also. Additionally, Article 7.2.5 states that "the authorization of a Special Use Permit in any Planned Development District for any use which is permitted only as a 'Class B' special use in the zoning district which corresponds to the Planned Development District shall preclude any requirement for Board of Adjustment approval but shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners." The existing Special Use Permit, Class B will be replaced and will not longer be valid under a `sunset provision' once the new Special Use Permit, Class A is recorded. According to Article 6.3.1, there can be "no more than one principal use on any zoning lot except where a) permitted as part of a Planned Development; or... c) One of the uses is an unmanned telecommunications tower subject to a year-to-year or other short-term lease." The Telecommunication Tower will become the second principal use on .this property. On September 12, 2006, the BOCC approved by resolution PEMC's request for an expedited zoning review according to the attached timeline. Also attached are findings of fact for both the amended Planned Development District and the associated Special Use Permit, Class A. All required documentation including, but not limited to, the .appropriate application forms, environmental assessments, the adjoining property mailing list with a map, and the technical telecommunications analyses relating to the need for the tower are included herein. AGENCY REVIEW: Sheriff s Office: See letter on page 61. Orange Rural Fire Department: See letter on page 62. EMS: See letter on page 63. PROCESS: Joint Public Hearing -October 3, 2006 Planning Board review- November 1, 2006 BOCC for adecision -December 4, 2006 (earliest available date) FINANCIAL IMPACT: Any costs involved in staff review or the normal public outreach will be reimbursed through the application fees or through the escrow account in the case of consulting services. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends approval for the Zoning Atlas amendment and the Special Use Permit, Class A application in accordance with the attached resolutions. Planning Board recommends approval for the Zoning Atlas amendment and the Special Use Permit, Class A application in accordance with the attached resolutions.