HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA minutes 042214Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 1 of 69
MINUTES 1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2
APRIL 22, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright, Full Member (Chair) 6
David Blankfard, Full Member (Vice Chair) 7
Mark Micol, Alternate Member 8
Jeffrey Schmitt, Full Member 9
Samantha Cabe, Alternate Member 10
11
MEMBER ABSENT: Karen Barrows, Full Member 12
13
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 14
Debra Graham, Board Secretary 15
James Bryan, Staff Attorney 16
17
18
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 19
20
AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 21
22
A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 23
24
Larry Wright: It is time for the election of officers. That will be after the approval of minutes. 25
26
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27
A. NOVEMBER 11, 2013 28
29
Larry Wright: On page 7, line 38 should read, “While this is circulating, could you please briefly state…”. On page 30
10, line 12 should read, “He can do that can’t he (to David Rooks)?” 31
32
Michael Harvey: On page 14, line 32 should read, “Sidewalks are not in these calculations.” 33
34
Larry Wright: On page 14, line 9 should read, “…staff’s testimony which is there are three miles..” 35
36
Michael Harvey: On page 15, line 30 should read, “…well in a contemporaneous negotiation.” 37
38
Larry Wright: On page 20, line 40 should read, “…met were not in the zoning ordinance when the SUP…” 39
40
Michael Harvey: On page 17, line 37 should read, effect when this special use permit was approved…”. On page 18 41
line 1 and 2 should read, …BOCC in this amending action. Our contention in that regard is that the Board of County 42
Commissioners set the Special Use Permit standards and this ….”. On page 19, line 6 should read, in 1986 when 43
...”. Line 9 should read, “…at the time it was approved.” Line 18 should read, “amended between the SUP…”. Line 44
29 should read, “This board doesn’t have jurisdiction over subdivision. You don’t have jurisdiction…”. Line 38 45
should read, “A complaint that the SUP did not meet county subdivision requirements…”. Line 43 should read, 46
…and it was admitted…”. Page 20, line 19 should read “… the special use permit approval…”. Line 41 should read, 47
“They were adopted after this project was approved. Those commitments were honored …” On page 21, line 10 48
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 2 of 69
should read, “Those requirements when this special use permit…”. Line 47 should read, “… the ordinance did not 1
authorize them to require it. Sometimes the government over reaches.” 2
3
Jeff Schmitt: On page 22, line 38 should read, “…was approved to when it became effective, …” 4
5
Michael Harvey: On page 22, line 33 should read, “It had to do with Environmental Management.” 6
7
Larry Wright: On page 22, line 5 should read, …when the plat is recorded…”. 8
9
Michael Harvey: On page 23, line 1 should read, “…though it is 1998 and 1986…” Line 6 should read, They can. 10
There are …”. Line 19 should read, “The county did not have those in 1986.” Lines 34 and 35 should read, “…dear 11
friend that is what prompted…” Line 36 should read, “…of the IV-B-7-b amendments that they don’t apply…”. Line 12
41 should read, “…don’t make any recommendation…”. Line 43 should read, “This was the Orange County’s first 13
foray in anything…” Everything else had…”. 14
15
Mark Micol: Page 29, lines 8 through 11 is attributed to me but I can’t make heads or tails of that paragraph, what do 16
we do in that case? 17
18
James Bryan: You are talking about minutes particular to a subject matter that my office had to recuse itself from. 19
The other part is generally about minutes. It is this board’s prerogative to approve the minutes. It is a transcription 20
of what happened. It should be as accurate as possible. 21
22
Mark Micol: Can I make an amendment to strike my name and put undetermined. 23
24
Michael Harvey: Unidentified board member. 25
26
Larry Wright: (To James Bryan). Do you agree this is the way to proceed? 27
28
James Bryan: It is perfectly fine if that is how the board wishes to proceed. 29
30
Michael Harvey: I am like Larry you are taking a lot of this correspondence out of context. I think it is reasonable to 31
say an undetermined board member and move on. 32
33
Michael Harvey: On page 39, line 13 should read, “was approved in 1986 by its terms the project shall…”. Page 40, 34
line 2 should read, “It is to the south of the creek.” Line 8 should read, “I am looking at a small portion in the 100 35
year flood…” Line 9 should read, “…our argument is that the quality was not in this special use permit. The 36
regulations…” 37
38
David Blankfard: Page 35, line 13 should read, “I think the 1986 code…” Line 45 should read, “…being that sum of 39
the parts…”. Page 36, line 4 should read, “Where is that in the special use permit?” Line 5 should read, 40
“Specifically the five acre requirement.” 41
42
Michael Harvey: Page 41, line 10 should read, “…angles don’t meet….”. 43
44
David Blankfard: On page 121, line 26 should read, “…was in effect. The one that…” 45
46
MOTION made by Jeff Schmitt to approve minutes with corrections. Seconded by Mark Micol. 47
VOTE: Unanimous 48
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 3 of 69
1
Larry Wright: I would like to move to the additions of the agenda to elect new officers. I wanted to call Karen to ask 2
if she would serve as an elected officer of this board. I did not do that. I went through the guidelines of the Board of 3
Adjustment and did not see where alternates could not serve as officers so I would like to open the nominations for 4
officers. Is there a problem with that? 5
6
Michael Harvey: As an alternate is not a sitting member, if the five permanent members are seated at the table then 7
the alternate does not technically have a vote or will not be making a decision as the five permanent members are at 8
the meeting. 9
10
Larry Wright: Can I counter that? Neither does the Mayor of Hillsborough so a presiding officer does not have to 11
vote. 12
13
James Bryan: Looking through the rules of procedure, I don’t see anything. I would think …. 14
15
Larry Wright: We have many capable members here and two are rolling off and I would like to have them be 16
considered for office. When I was on the planning board, we elected Jay Bryan as Chair when we knew he would 17
be rolling off in March or May. 18
19
Jeff Schmitt: Maybe, but I think it was a different issue. 20
21
James Bryan: I don’t see anything forbidding it but as a common sense thing for an attorney, I would have to advise 22
just the sitting members. 23
24
David Blankfard: Can we make her a full member? 25
26
Debra Graham: We will have to send it to the Board of Commissioners. 27
28
Larry Wright: There hasn’t been one appointed from the Planning Board. I wanted a good pool of candidates. 29
30
David Blankfard: Alternates cannot serve as an alternate. 31
32
Jeff Schmitt: That was my understanding. With only three of us being full members, I understand what you are 33
trying to do but it might be best to defer the elections until all the full members are present. 34
35
Larry Wright: I would be very comfortable with that. 36
37
Debra Graham: Maybe by that time, we can have the alternates, or at least one of them, appointed as full member 38
by the Board of County Commissioners. 39
40
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to defer the elections until at least four of the sitting permanent members are 41
present. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 42
VOTE: Unanimous 43
44
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 4 of 69
1
AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL – ORDER OF INTERPRETATION (MICHAEL BUCK) 2
3
Michael Harvey: The board made a decision to affirm staff’s decision. The findings of fact are on a revised handout 4
on your desk and detail the Board’s additional findings of fact and conclusions. For example, the zoning officer did 5
not err in his decision to apply subdivision ordinance, recreation area/amenity requirements of SUP approval when 6
approving the Phase IV final plat on February 4, 2008. The zoning officer did not err in approving the Phase IV final 7
plat planned development special use. There is no violation of the recreation requirements of the subdivision 8
ordinance in effect on May 20, 1996 but if the SUP was approved by the County March 31, 1998, the day the SUP 9
was recorded. On page 5, the zoning officer did not err in determining the planned development special use 10
complied with the SUP when approving the recordation of Phase IV Final Plat. 11
12
MOTION made by Jeff Schmitt outlining the affirmation of staff’s case at the November Hearing. Seconded by David 13
Blankfard. 14
VOTE: Unanimous 15
16
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 17
The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The 18
Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both 19
with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board 20
or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending 21
person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 22
decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a 23
genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as 24
cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to 25
silent/vibrate. 26
27
The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in 28
accordance with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified 29
functions essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by the board 30
are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during 31
a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed 32
within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude 33
evidence and testimony that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or 34
unduly repetitious’ and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the 35
Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on the 36
presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be 37
consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of 38
decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. 39
40
41
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 5 of 69
AGENDA ITEM 6: A-1-14 – CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT – TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY 1
2
In accordance with Section(s) 2.7 Special Uses, 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 Application of Use Standards – 3
Special Uses, and 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Facilities of the UDO American Tower and AT and T 4
Mobility have submitted a Class B Special Use Permit application seeking a permit to erect a 199 foot 5
telecommunication tower on a 55 acre parcel of property at 5309 Carr Store Road within the Cedar Grove Township 6
of the County, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9839-55-8588, which is 7
owned by the Kirby family. 8
The property in question is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection 9
Overlay District. The proposed use is permitted on the property subject to the issuance of a Class B Special Use 10
Permit. The property is currently utilized as a farm. 11
As detailed within the application, the applicant wishes to erect a telecommunication tower within a 100 foot by 100 12
foot leased area on the aforementioned parcel. There will be an equipment cabinet at the base of the tower to 13
house equipment for the various communication providers utilizing the tower within a 60 foot by 60 foot fenced 14
compound. 15
16
Access to the proposed facility shall be through an existing driveway with direct access to Carr Store Road. 17
18
19
The following individuals were sworn in: 20
Karen Kemerait 21
Joey Kirby 22
David Smith 23
David R. Vetter 24
Rusty Monroe 25
Larry Gunn 26
27
28
Karen Kemerait: I am with the law firm of Styers and Kemerait in Raleigh. Thank you for having me. We have an 29
extensive application binder that was submitted and introduced into the record. I don’t think it would be a good use 30
of time for me to go through all the materials since Mr. Harvey has gone through much of the information. Also, I 31
don’t believe there is any concern or opposition to this tower and I think there is support for seeing coverage in this 32
area. In previous hearings I had come and spoken to the Board of Adjustment, I mentioned that AT&T had made a 33
commitment to invest in some of the more rural areas of the county where there is an absence of coverage and this 34
application and site is one of those areas. I did want to point out that Joey Kirby, who is here tonight is the property 35
owner, he has been sworn in and will answer any questions. This is a very good site, the property is used for 36
agricultural purposes, it is 55 acres, and the parcel more than meets the setback requirements. The proposed tower, 37
the 199 foot tower, will be located 787 feet from Carr Store Road and 590 feet from the nearest property line. I did 38
want to point out what has already been included in tab 17 of the application binder, this is one of the Propagation 39
studies that shows this is the tower site, it shows the coverage currently available and north of this site, there is not 40
another AT&T tower or location for 10 miles north of this site so north of this area is an area where AT&T and other 41
carriers are really going to need to vest in the county to improve coverage. This is the coverage that is currently 42
available. The second propagation study shows the coverage that will be available once this tower has been 43
constructed. As I mentioned, there will still be areas, especially north of this site, where there will still not be 44
coverage but at least this is a beginning step in the right direction for improving the coverage. 45
46
Jeff Schmitt: Is this the coverage from just AT&T or all carriers? 47
48
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 6 of 69
Karen Kemerait: This is coverage from just AT&T but my understanding is there is a lack of coverage in that part of 1
the county as well. I don’t know the details of Verizon’s coverage, Verizon does have coverage in the county but my 2
understanding is that coverage is lacking in this part of the county for all carriers. Mr. Harvey may have more 3
information. 4
5
Michael Harvey: At the end of January every year, Orange County holds an annual telecommunication meeting with 6
all carriers that want to develop telecommunication facilities in Orange County. This meeting was attended by Ms. 7
Kemerait as AT&T’s representative as well as representatives from Verizon. Staff reviewed various propagation 8
maps and I will testify to this point in time, this area was identified as having no coverage and/or limited coverage. 9
Even Verizon indicated that it did not have coverage in this area so I will confirm that this will address a coverage 10
issue. 11
12
Larry Wright: You said this has a 10 mile to the north so how do we cover that to the north? 13
14
Karen Kemerait: The carriers need to come in and construct some more towers and I think this is the beginning 15
stages. I can tell you that this is the only application on my desk to file at this point but I don’t know that AT&T and 16
American Tower are continuing with their plans to improve coverage in the rural areas of Orange County. 17
18
Larry Wright: How far is that from the Virginia line? 19
20
Karen Kemerait: The closest tower is in Virginia and I actually can review the notes ….. 21
22
Jeff Schmitt: In Person County after this tower is constructed; there is no coverage from there until you get to 23
Danville? Caswell County? 24
25
Karen Kemerait: I have been told there is no AT&T coverage for 10 miles to the north. At Mr. Monroe’s request, we 26
provided additional information to show that coverage was available outside of the propagation studies that we had 27
prepared so we provided a scale that showed … this is where the tower site will be and with the tower site, this is the 28
existing coverage so you can see there is a loop but it is very limited. We did not provide additional sites because 10 29
miles per …. 30
31
Larry Wright: I am not detracting from the importance of putting this tower here. I am looking to the future so we 32
have people north of there. What I understand when they put up towers, they direct the signal so if Virginia puts up a 33
tower and directs the signal toward Virginia, aren’t we going to need another tower in addition to this one to help 34
these people out? 35
36
Karen Kemerait: I think the short answer is that to really continue to improve coverage in the northern or rural area 37
of the county, there is going to need to be a significant investment and more towers will be needed. The way the 38
towers work is they hand off to sites and this tower is going to be the hand off site between these two existing towers 39
and the addresses for those towers are 419 Hawkins Road in Cedar Grove and that is near the intersection of 40
Highway 49 and Highway 86 and the other site is 2351 John Lou Road in Burlington and it is also along Highway 49 41
and Highway 119. 42
43
Larry Wright: I said Virginia and Jeff said Caswell County but still don’t they direct signals within the county … when 44
they put a tower up? I’m in northern Orange County as well, it seemed they were directing signals towards the 45
county line back to Orange and north to Caswell, am I right or wrong on that? 46
47
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 7 of 69
Karen Kemerait: This may be a technical question for Mr. Monroe. I don’t think they are directing signals; there is a 1
limited area that the antennas will provide coverage for so it is going to be providing a geographic ring around the 2
tower so it is not directing it north or south but generally a ring around the tower. How much of it will be a circle or 3
ring will depend on topography, trees, terrain and matters like that. 4
5
Rusty Monroe: I am representing Carolina Telecommunication Services, the county’s consultant on this. The short 6
and quick answer is that the coverage is not determined primarily by the signal emanating out from the tower or 7
antennas. The limits of the coverage are determined by the ability of the handset to reach back to those antennas 8
and talk to them. With today’s technology, the power of your handset is getting lower and lower. The original 9
phones were 9 watt phones, bag phones, today’s handsets are powered about .4 of one watt which would light one 10
mini Christmas tree bulb so the range of the phone itself is the limiting factor. These facilities are designed as a 11
general rule for 360 degree service so what you are looking at is somewhere between two and three miles is really 12
pushing it for the reliable use of a phone. Keep in mind; we are not talking exclusively about phone service 13
anymore. In fact, the majority of traffic on one of these sites is not voice but data. The effect range is between two 14
and three miles today without an obstruction and that range will be shrinking. To give you some kind of idea and the 15
industry has acknowledged the validity of these numbers for a number of reasons primarily capacity or lack of 16
capacity of each of these sites. They will ultimately need, each carrier will need a facility to serve about somewhere 17
between 50 and 75 living units so you can do the math but nationally, you are talking millions of sites. That is just 18
the nature of technology and propagation and demand. This site is intended to fill a gap in service. The gap does 19
exist and this service will fill that gap. I am sure it is not the last site AT&T will be applying for and I am fairly 20
confident that they will be filling in the remaining gaps. 21
22
Karen Kemerait: As Mr. Harvey said, since it is only a 199 foot tower, it will not lit as required by the ordinance, and I 23
want to briefly mention that we have met the general use standards of the application and that is included in the 24
project narrative but I have provided information to show that a proposed tower will maintain or promote the public 25
health, safety and general welfare and I have provided a significant amount of detail of how we are meeting these 26
general requirement. We have shown the antennas will meet the FCC and American National Standard Institute 27
requirements. The tower will enable residents and people in their cars to make emergency calls, 911 calls, and it will 28
also promote the public convenience by promoting economic development in the northern part of the county. I have 29
also shown that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and included under Tab 36, we 30
have the property impact report. David Smith is here and prepared and he has concluded that the proposed tower 31
will maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property. He is here to answer any questions. I have also 32
shown that the proposed tower will be in harmony with the area. The site is partially wooded. There are significant 33
wooded areas to the east and south of the location and the woods will provide a natural landscape buffer. The tower 34
will be located a significant distance from the adjoining properties and the closest road and we have also provided 35
that this is not a service facility that is open to the public. It will be unmanned. It will only generate two to four 36
vehicle trips per month. There will be no noise, glare or odor from this use. The use will be similar to some of the 37
other rural uses in the area. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. 38
39
Mark Micol: This will add high speed internet service with data and voice? 40
41
Rusty Monroe: Yes, this will be a 4G service. 42
43
David Vetter: I live in Efland close to Cedar Grove. One of my concerns about moving out here a few years ago was 44
a lack of internet service….I have been sworn in….and it is still a big lack so I am with Verizon. I don’t know if AT&T 45
plans to sublet any of the bandwidth to other carriers or not, I hope so but if not, I would like to see Verizon put one 46
up because I have to have a land line because I don’t have sufficient cell phone signal to use a cell phone in the 47
house so I have to have a land line. I also use my internet and use a Verizon box to provide my own small cell 48
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 8 of 69
phone tower but that is at the expanse of the bandwidth from my internet connection so it would be a big benefit for 1
me to have better cell phone coverage and I know my neighbors would benefit too because a lot of them have land 2
lines and they would not have that monthly expense if they had sufficient cell phone coverage. With more data being 3
consumed, the data is a big concern also. I have low bandwidth coverage because we are on DSL because there is 4
no coverage out there because of the population density to provide the data service provided through the cell 5
communication network gives me access to internet that I would not have. I am in favor for myself and the 6
community. 7
8
Karen Kemerait: In response to his question, American Tower will be the owner of the tower and is required to 9
provide room for other carriers to co-locate on the tower. 10
11
Larry Wright: Is there room for the county to co-locate on that for emergency services? 12
13
Karen Kemerait: This is one of the ordinance requirements. 14
15
Michael Harvey: It is also an ordinance requirement that co-location opportunities be made available to other 16
carriers. We don’t get into the position of dictating to anyone what the rent should be but one of the reasons we 17
encourage and promote tower development is because of co-location opportunities. 18
19
Michael Harvey: We have two other individuals who have signed up to speak. Mr. Kirby has signed up to speak and 20
David Smith who is the expert who has provided the property value assessment contained in your packet; if you 21
have any questions. 22
23
Larry Wright: Do we have any other individuals that would like to speak? 24
25
Larry Gunn: I have been sworn. My name is Larry Gunn; I am Mr. Kirby’s next door neighbor. I think by the tower 26
coming it will be a plus because I am on Verizon and I have a line phone but I can’t get service on the cell phone. By 27
having a cell phone it will be a plus because by the post office, it starts losing signal so by getting a tower that will be 28
a plus for everybody. 29
30
31
32
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 9 of 69
1
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY 3
AT AND T / AMERICAN TOWER 4
REQUESTING A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL 5
FOR A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 6
5309 Carr Store Road – PIN 9839-55-8588 7
8
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development 9
Ordinance (UDO), a Class B Special Use Permit is required for the erection of a telecommunication 10
tower, over 75 feet but under 200 feet in height, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the 11
UDO. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 12
5.10.8 of the UDO. 13
14
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: 15
16
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located 17
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 18
19
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a 20
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of 21
contiguous property); and 22
23
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will 24
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with 25
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or 26
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County 27
Commissioners; 28
29
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following 30
specific standards: 31
32
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined 33
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO, 34
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of telecommunication tower as set forth in 35
Section 5.10.8 (A) through (B) of the UDO, 36
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: 37
a. Sewage disposal facilities, 38
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and 39
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site 40
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). 41
42
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The 43
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its 44
deliberations. 45 46
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 10 of 69
1
2
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" 3
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 4
5
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 2.2
The application for a
Class B Special Use
Permit shall be on forms
provided by the Planning
Department.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 2 of the application
booklet contains a
complete Orange County
Class B Special Use
Permit application for the
project.
_x_Yes ____No
2.2.4 (D)
Applications must be
accompanied by the fee
amount that has been
established by Board of
County Commissioners.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 1 of the application
booklet contains a copy
of the checks submitted
for the required fees.
Staff will stipulate the
applicant submitted the
required application fee
for the permit application.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (1)
A full and accurate
description of the
proposed use, including
its location, appearance,
and operational
characteristics.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 3 of the application
booklet contains a
complete project
narrative describing the
proposed use and
operational
characteristics of the
proposed tower.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (2)
The names and
addresses of the owners
of the property
X_ Yes ____No Tab(s) 3 and 5 of the
application booklet
contains information
concerning the names
and addresses of the
owner of the property
where the tower is to be
located.
_x_Yes ____No
6
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 11 of 69
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (3)
Relevant information
needed to show
compliance with the
general and specific
standards governing the
Special Use
X_ Yes ____No The application booklet
contains various
documents, including a
site plan, containing the
necessary information
establishing compliance
with the provisions of the
Ordinance.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (4)
Ten (10) copies of the site
plan prepared by a
registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or
engineer.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 6 of the application
booklet contains the
required site plan
completed by Velocitel
of Cary, NC.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (5)
If the application involves
a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
_X_ Not
Applicable
The project does not
involve or propose a
subdivision. As a result
no preliminary plat is
required.
_x__ Not
Applicable
2.7.3 (B) (6)
A list of all parcels located
within 1000 (Staff Note –
telecommunication tower
applicants are required to
observe a 1000 foot area)
feet of the subject parcel
and the
name and address of
each property owner, as
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
records.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 10 of the application
booklet contains a
complete list of property
owners within 1000 feet
of the subject property
as maintained by Orange
County Land Records.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (7)
Elevations of all structures
proposed to be used in
the development.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 6 of the application
booklet contains the
required elevations
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 12 of 69
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (8)
Ten (10) copies of an
Environmental
Assessment or
Environmental Impact
Statement as required by
Section 6.16 of the UDO
_X__ Not
Applicable
Per Section 6.16.2
Exemptions of the UDO
projects involving less
than a total area of two
(2) acres or less are not
required to produce an
Environmental
Assessment.
The proposed project will
not impact more than 2
acres of land area (lease
area is only 100 ft. by
100 ft. in area).
Per Section 6.16.3
Environmental
Assessment of the UDO
the project will not
involve the grading of
more than 40,000 sq. ft.
of property (exclusive of
roads), involve more
than 10,000 gallons per
day of water usage.
_x__ Not
Applicable
2.7.3 (B) (9)
Method of disposal of
trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris
associated with the
permitted activity, which
shall be by some method
other than open burning.
X_ Yes ____No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the a detailed
narrative and site plan
which notes construction
or land clearing debris
generated on-site will be
disposed of in
accordance with the
County’s Solid Waste
Management Ordinance.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (10)
Statement from the
applicant indicating the
anticipated development
schedule for the build-out
of the project.
X_ Yes ____No Tab 6 of the application
booklet contains the
required information,
_x_Yes ____No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 13 of 69
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (11)
Statement from the
applicant in justification of
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five years
maximum)
X Not Applicable The applicant is not
requesting vesting of the
project.
_x_ Not
Applicable
3
4
Michael Harvey: On pages 162 through 165, the planning staff has indicated and recommended approval of the 5
various findings indicating the application as required under Section 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Unified Development 6
Ordinance has been submitted in its complete form. We have provided under the various tabs of the application 7
packet that is in the record indicating its approval. The proper application was submitted, the application fee was 8
paid, the correct number of plans has been submitted, and all required information detailed in this section has been 9
complied with. 10
11
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to accept planning staff’s recommended findings for pages 162 through 165. 12
Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 13
VOTE: Unanimous 14 15
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 14 of 69
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; 1
"No" indicates non-compliance) 2
3
Ordinance Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 2.7.5 (a)
The Planning Director shall
give public notice of the
date, time and place of the
public hearing
_X Yes
____No
Attachment 3 of the
Abstract package
produced by staff provides
the necessary detail
outlining compliance with
this requirement.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.5 (b)
Such notice shall be
published in a newspaper of
general circulation in
Orange County once a
week for two successive
weeks, with the first notice
to be published not less
than ten days not more than
we days prior to the date of
the hearing.
_X Yes
____No
The legal ad for the April
22, 2014 BOA public
hearing was published in
the News of Orange and
the Herald consistent with
the requirements of the
UDO.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.5 (c)
The Planning Director shall
post on the affected
property a notice of the
public hearing at least ten
days prior to the date of said
hearing.
_X Yes
____No
Staff posted the required
sign in accordance with
the provisions of the UDO.
_x_Yes ____No
2.7.5 (d)
Written notice shall be sent
by certified mail to all
adjacent property owners
not less than 15 days before
the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those
whose property lies within
five hundred feet of the
affected property and whose
manes and addresses are
currently listed in the
Orange County tax records.
_X Yes
____No
Attachment 3 of the
Abstract package
produced by staff provides
the necessary detail
outlining compliance with
this requirement.
_x_Yes ____No
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 15 of 69
1
Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 166, this is compliance with Section 2.7.5, Special Use Permit notification 2
requirements. Staff has indicated that these have been complied with. I will remind you that Attachment 3 contains 3
the notification information. We did send out two letters within the required time frame correcting our error and we 4
will testify that we have met all obligations as subscribed in multiple state regulations to advertise to the public about 5
this hearing. Beginning on page 168 going through page …. 6
7
Samantha Cabe: I think it is actually page 167 where that section starts. 8
9
Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 167. 10
11
Debra Graham: We still need to start at page 166. 12
13
Michael Harvey: Page 166 was the notification requirements for Section 2.7.5. 14
15
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to adopt the staff findings on page 166 Section 2.7.5 as reflected on page 166 of 16
the abstract. Seconded by Mark Micol. 17
VOTE: Unanimous 18 19 20
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 16 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.10.8 Wireless
Telecommunications
Support Structures –
Submittal and Review
Requirements
5.10.8 (A) (1) (a)
A site plan and site plan
application package
prepared in accordance
with Section 2.5 shall be
presented for approval to
the Planning Division
including all requirements
for site development plan
approval as required.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information, specifically
the required site plan.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (b)
A detailed description of
the proposed
telecommunication
support structure (i.e.
monopole, self-supporting
lattice, etc.) including a
detailed narrative
description and
explanation of the specific
objective(s) for the new
facility including a
description as to the
coverage and/or capacity,
technical requirements,
and the identified
boundaries of the specific
geographic area of
intended coverage for the
proposed
telecommunication
support structure
X Yes ___No Tab 3 of the application
booklet contains a
complete project
narrative describing the
proposed use as well as
an explanation of the
specific objective(s) for
the new facility.
Tab(s) 6, 7, 15, 16, 17,
19, 20, 21, 22 of the
application booklet
contains other supporting
documentation satisfying
this requirement.
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 17 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (c)
Elevation drawings and
color renderings of the
proposed tower showing:
(i) The vertical rendition of
the telecommunication
support structure(s)
identifying all users and
attachments,
(ii) All related fixtures,
structures, appurtenances
and apparatus including
the height of said
structures above the
lowest adjacent pre-
existing grade,
(iii) The materials that will
be used on site for said
structures including their
color and any proposed
lighting and shielding
devices, and
(iv) If the facility is
intended to be a stealth,
as defined herein, the
colors and screening
devices for the Planning
Director to verify
consistency with
applicable definitions.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6 and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 18 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (d)
A signed statement from
the applicant certifying
that the proposed
telecommunication
support structure:
(i) Shall be maintained in
a safe manner,
(ii) Is in compliance with
all conditions of all
applicable permits and
authorizations without
exception, and
(iii) Is in compliance with
all applicable and
permissible local, State,
and Federal rules and
regulations.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 25, and 28 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (e)
A statement, prepared by
a professional engineer
licensed in the State of
North Carolina, which
through rational
engineering analysis,
certifies the tower's
compliance with
applicable standards as
set forth in the State of
North Carolina Building
Code, and any associated
regulations; and describes
the tower's capacity,
including an example of
the number and type of
antennas it can
accommodate.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 25 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 19 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (f)
A statement stating how
the proposed tower will
minimize visual
intrusiveness to
surrounding properties in
the area. Criteria that may
be used for such evidence
may be height and type of
existing trees surrounding
the proposed tower, and
local topography.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (g)
A copy of the installed
foundation design
including a geotechnical
sub-surface soils
investigation, evaluation
report, and foundation
recommendation for the
proposed wireless support
structure.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
contains required
information. A final
Geotech report is
required prior to the
issuance of a building
permit.
Staff will recommend this
become a condition of
approval.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (h)
The existing cell sites
(latitude, longitude, power
levels) to which this
proposed site will be a
handoff candidate.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 13 and 18 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (i)
Propagation studies of the
proposed site and
showing all adjoining
planned, proposed, in-
service or existing sites.
This will include all of the
modeling information used
to produce the study
including, but not limited
to, any assumptions made
about ambient tree height.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 13, 15, and 17 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 20 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (j)
The search ring utilized in
finding the proposed site.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 13 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
The County
telecommunication’s
consultant, CMS, has
reviewed the information
and concurs with the
applicant’s assertions.
Their comments are
detailed within
Attachment 2 of the
abstract.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (k)
The number, type, height,
and model of the
proposed antennas along
with a copy of the
applicable specification
sheet(s).
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, and 15 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (l)
The make, model and
manufacturer of the tower
and antenna(s), antenna
heights and power levels
of proposed site. This will
include documentation
establishing the azimuth,
size, and centerline height
location of all proposed
and existing antennas on
the structure.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6 and 15 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (m)
The frequency,
modulation and class of
service of radio or other
transmitting equipment.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, 15, and 18
of the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 21 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (n)
The maximum
transmission power
capability of all radios, as
designed, if the applicant
is a cellular or functional
equivalent carrier, or the
maximum transmission
power capability, as
designed, of all
transmission facilities if
the applicant is not a
cellular or functional
equivalent carrier.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 15, and 18 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (o)
The actual intended
transmission and the
maximum effective
radiated power of the
antenna(s).
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, 15, and 19
of the application booklet
contains the required
information.
.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (p)
The direction(s) of
maximum lobes and
associated radiation of the
antenna(s).
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, and 18 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (q)
Certification that the NIER
levels at the proposed site
are within the threshold
levels adopted by the
FCC.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 18 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 22 of 69
1
SECTION 5.10.8 (A) – STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 2
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 3
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (A) (1) (r)
Certification that the
proposed antenna(s) will
not cause interference
with other
telecommunications
devices.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 14 and 20 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (s)
A written affidavit stating
why "the proposed site is
necessary for their
communications service"
(e.g., for coverage,
capacity, hole-filling, etc.)
and a statement that there
are no existing alternative
sites within the provided
search ring and there are
no alternative
technologies available
which could provide the
proposed
telecommunications
service need without the
tower.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 14, 19 and 20
of the application booklet
contains the required
information.
The affidavit was
prepared by Tara
Rossato of AT and T
_x_Yes ____No
5.10.8 (A) (1) (t)
A copy of the FCC license
applicable for the intended
use of the facility as well
as a copy of the 5 and 10
year building out plan
required by the FCC.
X Yes ___No This information will be
provided prior to the
issuance of a building
permit. Staff is
recommending it become
a condition of approval.
_x_Yes ____No
4
5
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 23 of 69
SECTION 5.8.10 (A) (2) ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – CO LOCATION OF 1
ANTENNAS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (A) (2)
In addition to the
requirements denoted
herein, applications for the
co-location of antennas on
existing structures shall
be required to submit the
following:
X Not Applicable The applicant is not
proposing the co-location
of antenna with this
application.
The proposal is for a new
tower, not for the co-
location of equipment.
As a result the
requirements of Section
5.8.10 (A) (2) are not
applicable to this
application request.
This section will be
applicable in the future
where co-locations are
proposed for the tower if
approved.
_x_ Not
Applicable
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 24 of 69
SECTION 5.8.10 (B) GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (1) (a) and (b)
Overall Policy and Desired
Goals
The overall policy and
desired goals for Special Use
Permits for wireless
telecommunications support
structures shall be promoting
and encouraging, wherever
possible, the following:
(a) Alternatives to
constructing new wireless
support structures, including
but not limited to the co-
location of wireless
telecommunications
equipment and mitigating the
visual effect of a wireless
telecommunication support
structure to an extent not
commercially impracticable;
and
(b) The placement, height
and quantity of wireless
telecommunications towers
and equipment in such a
manner, including but not
limited to the use of stealth
technology or camouflage
techniques, to minimize
adverse aesthetic and visual
impacts on the land,
property, buildings, and other
facilities adjacent to,
surrounding, and in generally
the same area as the
requested location of such
wireless telecommunications
support structure, which shall
mean using the least visually
and physically intrusive
facility that is not
technologically or
commercially impracticable
under the facts and
circumstances.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, and the entire
booklet contain the
required information
addressing this
requirement.
There are no existing
towers in the area to
address service needs,
so co-location
opportunities were not
available.
While there is a County
pre-designated site in
this area, the property
will not allow for the
erection of a tower in
compliance with
applicable standards as
detailed within the UDO.
Tab(s) 3 and 6 provides
sufficient information
denoting compliance with
subsection (b).
_x_Yes ____No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 25 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (2) Balloon
Test
(a) The applicant shall, at
least six weeks prior to a
Class B Special Use
Permit public hearing and
at least 11 weeks prior to
a Class A Special Use
Permit public hearing,
conduct a balloon test
whereby the applicant
shall arrange to fly, or
raise upon a temporary
mast, a minimum of 10’3”
in length, brightly colored
red or orange balloon at
the maximum height of
the proposed new
wireless support structure.
(b) The balloon test shall
be flown for at least four
consecutive daylight
hours starting sometime
between 10:00 A.M. and
2:00 P.M. on the dates
chosen.
(c) A notice of the dates
(including a second date
in case of poor visibility,
weather or atmospheric
conditions on the initial
date), times, and location
of the balloon test shall be
mailed, by certified mail,
return receipt requested,
by the applicant, to all
persons owning property
within 1,000 feet of the
subject parcel no less
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 7, and 10
(Tabs A-D) of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
The balloon test was
completed on December
11, 2013 – approximately
18 weeks prior to the
April 22, 2014 BOA
public hearing. This date
did not fall on a holiday
and is consistent with the
requirement of Section
5.8.10 (B) (2) (d) of the
UDO as detailed herein.
Tab 7 contains pictures
of the balloon test, which
was held from 10:00 a.m.
until 2:00 p.m. on
December 11, 2013.
Notices of the balloon
test were sent to
property owners within
1000 feet, of the subject
property, via certified
mail on November 20,
2013, 20 days prior to
the scheduled balloon
test (Please refer to Tab
10)
The list of property
owners within 1000 feet
utilized by the applicant
was generated utilizing
data maintained by
Orange County Land
Records as required by
the UDO. (Please refer
to Tab 10)
_x_Yes ____No
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 26 of 69
1
than 14 days in advance
of the first test date. The
data contained within the
office of Orange County
Land Records shall be
used as the primary
source for determining
which residents are to
receive notice of the
balloon tests.
(d) The primary date shall
be on a weekend
(excluding legal holidays),
but to prevent delays in
the processing of the
application, and in case of
poor weather or
atmospheric conditions on
the initial date, the
secondary date may be a
weekday.
(e) The applicant shall
inform the County
Planning Staff, in writing,
of the dates and times of
the test at least 14 days in
advance.
(f) The applicant shall also
post a sign on the subject
property, and directional
signs posted at locations
to be determined by
Planning Staff. The signs
shall measure no more
than nine square feet in
area and no less than four
square feet in area, giving
the contact information of
the County Planning
Department, the proposed
dates, times, and location
of the balloon test. The
signs shall be posted to
meet the same time limits
as provided for in the
balloon test notification as
stated above.
The test was held
consistent with the
requirements of Section
5.8.10 (B) (2) (d) as
detailed herein.
Planning staff was
informed of the test as
required by Section
5.8.10 (B) (2) (e) as
detailed herein.
Signs were posted on
the property, as well as
off-site directional signs,
on November 22, 2013.
2
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 27 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) Submittal
Requirements
5.8.10 (B) (3) (a)
(a) A site plan showing
the following:
(i) The entire site
(including property
boundary lines) and size
of all existing structures
within 500 feet of the site,
(ii) Existing and proposed
structures on site,
(iii) The fall zone of the
tower,
(iv) Existing and proposed
topography at a contour
interval of five feet and
(v) Any officially
designated floodways and
floodplains, or the
presence of alluvial soils.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-1 of the site
plan contained in Tab 6
provides the size of all
structures within 500 feet
of the site as well as
denoting the fall zone of
the proposed tower and
the existing/proposed
topography lines.
There is a statement on
sheet C-1 indicating
there are no
floodways/floodplains on
the property. Staff
concurs with this finding.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (b)
Plans, and elevations for
all proposed structures
and descriptions of the
color and nature of all
exterior material, along
with the make, model, and
manufacturer of the
proposed structure,
maximum antenna
heights, and power levels.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, and 25 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-3 of the site
plan contained in Tab 6
provides information
about the tower and
antennas.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 28 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (c)
A Landscape and Tree
Preservation Plan drawn
at the same scale as the
site plan, showing the
existing and proposed
trees, shrubs, ground
cover and other
landscape materials. This
plan shall minimize
adverse visual effects of
wireless
telecommunications
support structures and
antennas through careful
design, siting, landscape
screening and innovative
camouflaging techniques.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information. Refer to
Sheet C-2.1 for
additional information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 29 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (d)
Evidence that the
applicant has investigated
the possibilities of placing
the proposed equipment
on an existing wireless
support structure. Such
evidence shall consist of:
i. A listing of all wireless
telecommunications
support structures within a
two mile radius of the
proposed wireless support
structure site and a listing
of all wireless support
structure, utility poles and
other structures in the
vicinity of the proposed
facility that are technically
feasible for utilization by
the applicant to fill all or a
substantial portion of the
telecommunications
service need identified by
the Applicant pursuant to
section 5.10.8(A)(1)(s).
Documents shall be
submitted at the time of
application filing that
indicates the applicant’s
ability or inability to co-
locate on the identified
tower(s) and reasons why.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 14, 19, and 20
of the application booklet
contains the required
information.
Tab(s) 14 and 20
contains affidavits
indicating there are no
existing towers,
buildings, or other
useable structures within
a 2 mile radius in which
antennas could be
attached.
Tab 13 contains a
search ring map.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 30 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (d)
(continued)
ii. Delineation of the
boundaries of the
maximum search ring
within which the
telecommunication
equipment can function as
intended. The following
information shall be
provided for all existing
wireless support
structures within the
search ring:
a. Wireless
telecommunication
support structure height;
b. Existing and planned
wireless support structure
users;
c. Whether the existing
wireless
telecommunication
support structure could
accommodate the
telecommunication
equipment to be attached
to the proposed wireless
support structure without
causing structural
instability or radio
frequency interference;
and
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 31 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (d)
(continued)
d. If the proposed
telecommunication
equipment cannot be
accommodated on the
existing wireless
telecommunication
support structure, assess
whether the existing
wireless support structure
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 wireless support
structure; and
e. Any restrictions or
limitations of the FCC or
FAA that would preclude
the shared use of the
wireless support structure;
f. Propagation studies of
all adjoining planned,
proposed, in-service, or
existing sites, and;
g. Any additional
information requested by
the County.
iii. A summary
explanation of why
proposed
telecommunication
equipment cannot be
located on any of the
existing wireless support
structures in the search
ring.
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 32 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (e)
Documentation from
applicable state or federal
agencies indicating
requirements, which affect
the appearance of the
proposed wireless support
structure, such as lighting
and coloring.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 31 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
There is no lighting
required for the
proposed tower.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (f)
Draft bond which will
guarantee the removal of
the wireless support
structure in the event that
it is abandoned or unused
for a period of 12 months.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 29 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (g)
A listing of, and current
tax map identifying, all
property owners within
1,000 feet of the parcel
and addressed, first class
stamped envelopes to the
property owners for
notifications of the public
hearing in accordance
with Sections 2.7.5 and
2.7.6 of this Ordinance.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 10 (Tabs
A-E) of the application
booklet contains the
required information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (h)
A report containing any
comments received by the
applicant in response to
the balloon test along with
color photographs from
various locations around
the balloon.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 33 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (i)
Evidence that the balloon
test requirement has been
met, including a notarized
statement and listing of
the property owners
notified of the test, a copy
of a current Orange
County Tax Map showing
the subject property and
all properties within the
notification ring, and
copies of the certified mail
returned receipts from the
mail-out.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 10 (Tabs
A-E) of the application
booklet contains the
required information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (j)
A notarized statement that
the sign posting
requirement has been
met.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 10 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (k)
Photographs of a clearly
visible balloon floated at the
proposed tower location to
the maximum height of the
tower, as well as
photographs with the
proposed tower and
associated antennas
superimposed upon them
showing what the proposed
tower will look like.
Photographs shall be taken
from locations such as:
property lines, and/or nearby
residential areas, historic
sites, roadways, including
scenic roads and major view
corridors, and other locations
as deemed necessary by the
Planning Staff to assess the
visual impact of the proposed
tower.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 34 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (l)
The Special Use Permit
application shall include a
statement that the facility
and its equipment will
comply with all federal,
state and local emission
requirements.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 18 and 27 of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (m)
An Applicant may be
required to submit an
Environmental
Assessment Analysis and
a Visual addendum.
Based on the results of
the Analysis, including the
Visual addendum, the
County may require
submission of a more
detailed visual analysis.
The scope of the required
Environmental and Visual
Assessment will be
reviewed at the pre-
application meeting.
_X_ Not applicable The applicant was not
required by staff to
complete the additional
information
_x_ Not
applicable
5.8.10 (B) (3) (n)
If required, a Visual
Impact Assessment,
which shall include:
_X_ Not applicable The applicant was not
required by staff to
complete the additional
information. As a result
the provisions of this
section do not apply.
_x_Not applicable
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 35 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.8.10 (B) (3) (o)
All applications shall
contain a demonstration
that the wireless support
structure is sited so as to
have the least visually
intrusive effect reasonably
possible and thereby have
the least adverse visual
effect on the environment
and its character, on
existing vegetation, and
on the residences in the
area of the
telecommunications
tower.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.8.10 (B) (3) (p)
A statement, prepared by
a professional engineer
licensed in the State of
North Carolina, which
through rational
engineering analysis,
certifies the tower's
compliance with
applicable standards as
set forth in the State of
North Carolina Building
Code, and any associated
regulations; and describes
the tower's capacity,
including an example of
the number and type of
antennas it can
accommodate.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 25 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Tab 25 contains a
statement authored by
Habib Azouri PE
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 36 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.10.8 (B) (4)
Standards of Evaluation
5.10.8 (B) (4) (a)
(a) The telecommunications
equipment planned for the
proposed wireless support
structures cannot be
accommodated on an
existing wireless support
structures due to one or
more of the following
reasons:
(i) The planned equipment
would exceed the structural
capacity of existing and
approved wireless support
structures, considering
existing and planned use of
those wireless support
structures and the wireless
support structures cannot be
reinforced to accommodate
planned or equivalent
equipment at a reasonable
cost.
(ii) The planned equipment
would cause radio frequency
interference with other
existing or planned
equipment for these wireless
support structures, and the
interference cannot be
prevented at a reasonable
cost.
(iii) Existing or approved
wireless support structures
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.
(iv) 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.
X Yes ___No Tab 3 and 13 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
There are no existing
towers in the area to
address service provision
needs. As a result the
antenna proposed for the
site cannot be located
elsewhere.
The application in its
entirety provides the
necessary
documentation outlining
why the tower has to go
on this property.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 37 of 69
1
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 2
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 3
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (b)
Location of Wireless
Support Structures:
(i) Applicants for facilities
shall locate, site and erect
said facilities according to
the following priorities, in
the following order:
a. On existing County-
owned facilities without
increasing the height of
the tower or structure.
b. On existing Facilities
without increasing the
height of the tower or
structure.
c. On County-owned
properties or facilities.
d. On properties in areas
zoned for commercial or
industrial use.
e. On properties in areas
zoned Agricultural
Residential (AR).
f. On properties in areas
zoned for residential use.
X Yes ___No Tab 3 of the application
booklet contains the
required information.
There are no ‘County’
owned facilities in the
area allowing for antenna
to be located.
There are no existing
towers in the area to
address service provision
needs.
There are no
commercially and/or
industrially zoned
properties in the area
where a tower could be
located in compliance
with the standards
detailed within the UDO.
There subject property is
zoned AR.
This property is zoned
for residential use.
_x_Yes ___No
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 38 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (b)
Continued
(ii) If an Applicant
proposes to place
telecommunications
equipment at a location
that is not a preferred
priority 1 site, then the
Applicant must provide a
detailed explanation as to
why a higher priority site
is not proposed. The
explanation shall be in the
form of a written report
demonstrating the
Applicant’s review of the
above locations in order of
priority and the reason(s)
for the site selection. The
explanation shall, at a
minimum, include the
information required by
section 5.10.8(B)(3)(e).
(iii) The application shall
not be approved unless it
demonstrates that the
telecommunications
equipment may not be
sited at a higher priority
site because of
commercial
impracticability or
because no higher priority
site is available that would
serve to provide the
telecommunications
service need identified by
the Applicant as provided
for in section
5.10.8(A)(1)(s).
X Yes ___No
This property represents
the lowest priority site
per Section 5.10.8 (B) (4)
(b) (i) (f) as detailed
above.
The proposed tower is
located: ‘On properties in
areas zoned for
residential use’
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 39 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (b)
Continued
(iv) An Applicant may not
by-pass sites of higher
priority merely because
the site proposed is the
only site leased or
selected. Agreements
between providers limiting
or prohibiting co-location
shall not be a valid basis
for any claim of
commercial
impracticability.
(v) Notwithstanding that a
potential site may be
situated in an area of
highest priority or highest
available priority, an
application shall not be
approved if it conflicts with
the provisions and
requirements of this
Ordinance.
The applicant is not by-
passing a ‘higher priority’
site with the proposal to
erect a tower on this
property. There are no
higher priority sites in the
area where a tower can
be located.
3 4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 40 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (b)
Continued
(vi) Wireless support
structures shall not be
located within one-half (½)
mile of any existing
monopole, lattice or guyed
wireless telecommunications
support structure.
a. An exception may be
allowed when the applicant
can sufficiently demonstrate
that:
i. Appropriate space on the
existing telecommunication
wireless support structure is
not available; or
ii. The applicant has made
good faith effort to negotiate
an agreement with the owner
of the existing wireless
telecommunication support
structure and has been
unsuccessful, which must be
documented in writing; or
iii. The telecommunication
equipment on the existing
wireless telecommunication
support structure is not
compatible with the proposed
telecommunication
equipment of the applicant;
or
iv. Adequate coverage by the
applicant cannot be met at
the location of the existing
wireless telecommunication
support structure; or
v. The existing wireless
telecommunication support
structure cannot be
reasonably modified to
accommodate additional co-
location by the applicant.
There are no wireless
support structures within
½ mile of this property.
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 41 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (b)
Continued
b. Exceptions shall only
be allowed after a
thorough analysis of the
search area, provided by
the applicant is performed
by the County’s consultant
or Staff, indicating that
coverage is not possible
on an existing wireless
support structure at the
four-carrier capacity or
other user capacity that
can be achieved. There
must be an 80% approval
vote of the deciding board
for this specific finding to
pass the exception
criteria.
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 42 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (c)
Setbacks
(i) Within or adjacent to
residential zoning districts,
minimum setbacks from
the base of the wireless
support structure to the
property boundary shall
be equal to 110% of the
wireless support structure
height.
(ii) If the wireless support
structure is proposed as
an accessory use to a
residential use, the
setback shall be 110% of
the wireless support
structure height from any
residence or dwelling unit
on the subject property.
(iii) Adjacent to non-
residential uses or non-
residential zoning districts,
minimum setbacks from
the base of the wireless
support structure to the
property boundary shall
be the greater of 20% of
the tower height, or the
minimum required
setback.
(iv) All buildings and other
structures to be located
on the same zoning lot as
a telecommunication
tower wireless support
structure shall conform to
the setbacks established
for the zoning district or
as established through the
subdivision process,
whichever is greater.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-1 of the site
plan contained in Tab 6
indicates setback of the
tower from the property
line.
The application package
indicates there are no
residential ‘houses’ on
the site.
There are also no
adjacent non-residential
land uses or zoning
districts per subsection
(iii) as detailed herein.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 43 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (d) Access
(i) At a wireless
telecommunications
support structure site, an
access road, turn around
space and parking shall
be provided to assure
adequate emergency and
service access.
(ii) Maximum use of
existing roads, whether
public or private, shall be
made to the extent
practicable.
(iii) Road construction
shall, at all times,
minimize ground
disturbance and the
cutting of vegetation.
(iv) Road grades shall
closely follow natural
contours to assure
minimal visual disturbance
and reduce soil erosion.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-1 and C-2 of the
site plan contained in
Tab 6 contains sufficient
detail denoting
compliance.
Existing roads will be
utilized to the maximum
extent possible. Road
construction shall follow,
to the greatest extent
possible, the existing
contour of the land and
minimize the removal of
vegetation.
_x_Yes ___No
3 4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 44 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (e)
Landscape and Buffers
(i) A Type C Landscape
Buffer shall be provided
between the wireless
support structures and its
accessory structures and
adjoining
property/properties.
(ii) Existing vegetation
may be removed only to
the extent necessary to
accommodate the
wireless support
structures, equipment
buildings, and support
structures such as guy
wires.
(iii) Plantings around the
compound perimeter,
outside of any fence or
wall, shall be composed
entirely of fast growing
evergreen vegetation.
(iv) New plantings and
existing vegetation used
for screening shall be at
least six feet in height or
greater at planting.
(v) Proposed plantings
(name, type, height) shall
be shown on the
Landscape Plan for the
facility.
(vi) Landscaping shall
provide a screen on a
year-round basis.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 45 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (f)
The visibility of the balloon
to adjacent properties and
the surrounding area shall
not constitute sole
justification of denial of a
permit application but is
an indication of what
location on the site may
be less visually intrusive.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition. Balloon Test
information, including
visibility
pictures/renderings are
contained within Tab 7 of
the application package
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (g)
The applicant shall
demonstrate and provide
a description in writing
and by drawing how it
shall effectively screen
from view the base and all
related equipment and
structures of the proposed
facility.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3, 6, and 7 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-1 of the site
plan in Tab 6 provides
information on the
landscaping. Tab 7
provides information
related to the balloon
visibility.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (h)
The site plan shall
indicate a location for at
least two equipment
buildings in addition to
that proposed for use by
the applicant.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-2 of the site
plan in Tab 6 provides
the required information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (i)
All utilities at a facility site
shall be installed
underground and in
compliance with all Laws,
ordinances, rules and
regulations of the County,
including specifically, but
not limited to, the National
Electrical Safety Code
and the National Electrical
Code where appropriate.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet(s) E1 through E8
of the site plan in Tab 6
provides required detail.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 46 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (j)
All wireless support
structures shall satisfy all
applicable public safety,
land use, or zoning issues
required in this Ordinance,
including aesthetics,
landscaping, land-use
based location priorities,
structural design,
setbacks, and fall zones.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (k)
Fences and Walls
(i) An eight foot fence or
wall shall be required
around the base of any
wireless support
structures. This fence or
wall shall encompass all
accessory equipment
within the compound.
(ii) Fences shall be
required around guy wire
tie downs
(iii) A fence or wall may be
placed around the
perimeter of the facility to
include guy wire tie downs
and associated equipment
should the
applicant/owner wish to
do so.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet(s) C-2 and C-9 of
the site plan contained in
Tab 6 contains the
required information on
proposed fences and
walls.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 47 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (l)
The communications
tower is structurally
designed to support
additional users as
provided for in Section
5.10.8(A)(3)(d), and the
Special Use Permit
includes a statement that
the owner of the wireless
support structure is willing
to permit other user(s) to
attach communication
equipment which do not
interfere with the primary
purpose of the wireless
support structure,
provided that such other
users agree to negotiate a
reasonable compensation
to the owner from such
liability as may result from
such attachment.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 28 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Tab 28 contains the
required co-location
certification document.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (m)
To minimize the number
of antenna arrays and
thus the visual impact, the
County may require the
use of dual mode
antennas to be used,
including by two different
carriers, unless it can be
proven that such will not
work technologically and
that such would have the
effect of prohibiting the
provision of service in the
County.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Staff is recommending
this as a specific
condition of approval.
Language within the
application allows for this
if required by the County.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 48 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (n)
Structures shall be
galvanized and/or painted
with a rust-preventive
paint of an appropriate
color to harmonize with
the surroundings.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Language within the
application indicates the
proposed monopole will
be constructed of
galvanized steel, grey in
color, and will ‘harmonize
and blend with and into
the environment and
natural color of the
background’
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (o)
Both the wireless
telecommunications
support structure and any
and all accessory or
associated
telecommunication
equipment and related
facilities shall maximize
the use of building
materials, colors and
textures designed to blend
with the structure to which
it may be affixed and/or to
harmonize with the natural
surroundings, this shall
include the utilization of
stealth technology as may
be required by the
County.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Language within the
application indicates the
proposed monopole will
be constructed of
galvanized steel, grey in
color, and will ‘harmonize
and blend with and into
the environment and
natural color of the
background’
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 49 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (p)
Antennas
(i) All new or replacement
antennas, except omni-
directional whip antennas,
shall be flush-mounted or
as close to flush-mounted
as is technologically
possible on any facility, so
long as such does not
have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of
service to the intended
service area, alone or in
combination with another
site(s), unless the
applicant can prove that it
is technologically
impracticable.
(ii) If attached to a
building, all antennas shall
be mounted on the face of
the building and
camouflaged so as to
match the color and, if
possible, texture of the
building or in a manner so
as to make the antennas
as visually innocuous and
undetectable as is
possible given the facts
and circumstances
involved.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
Sheet C-3 of the site
plan contained within
Tab 6 indicated the
antennas will be located
on the proposed
monopole tower will be
flush mounted.
Language within the
application indicates this
condition will be adhered
to.
Subsection (ii) is not
applicable to this
application.
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 50 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (q)
Lighting
__X__ Not
Applicable
As detailed within the
application the tower is
not required, or is it
going to be, illuminated.
__x__ Not
Applicable
5.10.8 (B) (4) (r)
The tower and antenna
will not result in a
significant adverse impact
on the view of or from any
historic site, scenic road,
or major view corridor.
X Yes ___No Adjacent roadways are
not designated as scenic
roads or major view
corridors.
According to a
memorandum from
Orange County DEAPR
staff, contained within
Attachment 2 of the
staff abstract, there are
no issues with respect to
detraction from historic
sites.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (s)
Facilities, including
antennas, towers and
other supporting
structures, such as guy
anchor points and wires,
shall be made
inaccessible to individuals
and constructed or
shielded in such a manner
that they cannot be
climbed or collided with;
and transmitters and
telecommunications
control points shall be
installed in such a manner
that they are readily
accessible only to persons
authorized to operate or
service them.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Language within the
application indicates this
condition will be adhered
to.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 51 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (t)
All abandoned
communication wireless
support structures shall be
removed within 12 months
of the cessation of use. A
bond or other security
guaranteeing the removal
of the tower in the event
that it is abandoned or
unused for a period of 12
months shall be posted. A
cost estimate shall be
provided by a qualified
General Contractor
licensed in the State of
North Carolina. The
amount of the security
shall be 110% of the
estimate.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Language within the
application indicates this
condition will be adhered
to.
This will be addressed
prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
of the structure and shall
become a condition of
approval.
_x_Yes ___No
5.10.8 (B) (4) (u)
A determination shall be
made that the facility and
its equipment will comply
with all federal, state and
local emission
requirements, and the
Special Use Permit shall
include a statement that
the facility and its
equipment will comply
with all federal, state and
local emission
requirements.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Language within the
application indicates this
condition will be adhered
to.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 52 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (v)
Electro-magnetic radiation
levels.
(i) The Special Use Permit
shall include a condition
that the electro-
magnetic radiation levels
maintain compliance with
requirements of the FCC,
regarding emission of
electromagnetic radiation.
(ii) Within 30 days of
installation of equipment
on the tower, and within
30 days of the installation
of any additional
equipment in the future,
the tower owner shall
provide documentation of
emission levels in relation
to FCC standards.
(iii) In addition, the tower
owner must provide
documentation of
emission levels within five
working days if so
requested by Orange
County.
(iv) Orange County may
make such requests at
any time, not to exceed
two times per year.
X Yes ___No The applicant
acknowledges the
condition.
Language within the
application indicates this
condition will be adhered
to.
This will become a
condition of approval for
the project.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 53 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (w)
“High Voltage”, "No
Trespassing" and Other
Signs
(i) If high voltage is
necessary for the
operation of the
telecommunications tower
or any accessory
structures, "HIGH
VOLTAGE - DANGER"
warning signs shall be
permanently attached to
the fence or wall and shall
be spaced no more than
40 feet apart.
(ii) "NO TRESPASSING"
warning signs shall be
permanently attached to
the fence or wall and shall
be spaced no more than
40 feet apart.
(iii) The letters for the
"HIGH VOLTAGE -
DANGER" and "NO
TRESPASSING" warning
signs shall be at least six
inches in height. The two
warning signs may be
combined into one sign.
The warning signs shall
be installed at least five
feet above the finished
grade of the fence.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 54 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (w)
Continued
(iv) The warning signs
may be attached to
freestanding poles if the
content of the signs
would, or could, be
obstructed by
landscaping. Signs noting
federal registration (if
required) shall be
attached to the tower
structure in compliance
with federal regulation.
(v) Facilities shall contain
a sign no larger than four
square feet to provide
adequate notification to
persons in the immediate
area of the presence of
RF radiation or to control
exposure to RF radiation
within a given area.
(vi) A sign no larger than
four square feet
containing the name(s) of
the owner(s) and
operator(s) of the
antenna(s) as well as
emergency phone
number(s) shall be
installed. The sign shall
be on the equipment
shelter or cabinet of the
applicant and be visible
from the access point of
the site and must identify
the equipment owner of
the shelter or cabinet.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 55 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (4) (w)
Continued
(vii) On tower sites, an
FCC registration sign, as
applicable, is also to be
present. The signs shall
not be lighted, unless
applicable law, rule or
regulation requires
lighting.
(viii) The use of any
portion of a tower for
signs or advertising
purposes including
company name, banners,
streamers, etc. shall be
strictly prohibited.
(ix) Mobile or immobile
equipment not used in
direct support of a tower
facility shall not be stored
or parked on the site of
the telecommunication
tower, unless repairs to
the tower are being made.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 and 6 of the
application booklet
contains the required
information.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 56 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (5)
Bond Security
(a) The applicant and the
owner of record of any
proposed facility property
site shall, at its cost and
expense, be jointly
required to execute and
file with the County a
bond, or other form of
security acceptable to the
County as to type of
security and the form and
manner of execution, in
an amount of at least
$75,000.00 for a tower
and with such sureties as
are deemed sufficient by
the County to assure the
faithful performance of the
terms and conditions of
this Section and
conditions of any Special
Use Permit issued
pursuant to this Section.
(b) The full amount of the
bond or security shall
remain in full force and
effect throughout the term
of the Special Use Permit
and/or until any necessary
site restoration is
completed to restore the
site to a condition
comparable to that, which
existed prior to the
issuance of the original
Special Use Permit Tower
Inspection.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
acknowledges the
condition and indicates it
shall be adhered to.
_x_Yes ___No
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 57 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (6)
Liability Insurance
(a) A holder of a Special
Use Permit for a wireless
support structure shall
secure and at all times
maintain public liability
insurance for personal
injuries, death and
property damage, and
umbrella insurance
coverage, for the duration
of the Special Use Permit
in the following amounts:
(i) Commercial General
Liability covering personal
injuries, death and
property damage:
$1,000,000 per
occurrence/$2,000,000
aggregate; and
(ii) Automobile Coverage:
$1,000,000.00 per
occurrence/ $2,000,000
aggregate; and
(iii) A $3,000,000
Umbrella coverage; and
(iv) Workers
Compensation and
Disability: Statutory
amounts.
(b) For a wireless support
structure on County
property, the Commercial
General Liability
insurance policy shall
specifically name the
County as an additional
insured. The insurance
policies shall be issued by
an agent or representative
of an insurance company
licensed to do business in
the State and with a
Best’s rating of at least A.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
acknowledges the
condition and indicates it
shall be adhered to.
_x_Yes ___No
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 58 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (6)
Liability Insurance
Continued
(c) The insurance policies
shall contain an
endorsement obligating
the insurance company to
furnish the County with at
least 30 days prior written
notice in advance of the
cancellation of the
insurance.
(d) Renewal or
replacement policies or
certificates shall be
delivered to the County at
least 15 days before the
expiration of the insurance
that such policies are to
renew or replace.
(e) Before construction of
a permitted facility is
initiated, but in no case
later than 15 days prior to
the grant of the building
permit, the holder of the
Special Use Permit shall
deliver to the County a
copy of each of the
policies or certificates
representing the
insurance in the required
amounts. A Certificate of
Insurance that states that
it is for informational
purposes only and does
not confer rights upon the
County shall not be
deemed to comply with
this Section.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
acknowledges the
condition and indicates it
shall be adhered to.
This shall become a
condition of approval for
the project.
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 59 of 69
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – 1
CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
5.10.8 (B) (6)
Liability Insurance
Continued
(c) The insurance policies
shall contain an
endorsement obligating
the insurance company to
furnish the County with at
least 30 days prior written
notice in advance of the
cancellation of the
insurance.
(d) Renewal or
replacement policies or
certificates shall be
delivered to the County at
least 15 days before the
expiration of the insurance
that such policies are to
renew or replace.
(e) Before construction of
a permitted facility is
initiated, but in no case
later than 15 days prior to
the grant of the building
permit, the holder of the
Special Use Permit shall
deliver to the County a
copy of each of the
policies or certificates
representing the
insurance in the required
amounts. A Certificate of
Insurance that states that
it is for informational
purposes only and does
not confer rights upon the
County shall not be
deemed to comply with
this Section.
X Yes ___No Tab(s) 3 of the
application booklet
acknowledges the
condition and indicates it
shall be adhered to.
This shall become a
condition of approval for
the project.
_x_Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 60 of 69
Michael Harvey: We will go from page 167 to page 211 which is compliance with standards for telecommunication 1
facilities Section 5.10.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance A and B. Through all these pages, staff has indicated 2
that the applicant has met their burden of proof. We have provided sufficient documentation in the record of the 3
application demonstrating compliance and we have recommended an affirmative finding on all the parameters as 4
detailed within 5.10.8 A and B. 5
6
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to adopt the staff findings on page 167 through page 211. Seconded by David 7
Blankfard. 8
VOTE: Unanimous 9
10
11
12
SECTION 5.3.2 (B) – SPECIFIC STANDARDS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS ("Yes" indicates 13
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 14
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1)
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage
disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
X_ Yes ____No Attachment 2 of the
staff prepared abstract
contains
memorandum/emails
from Orange County
Environmental Health
indicating there are no
septic systems required
for the support of the
proposed
telecommunication
tower.
There is also an e-mail
from Jeff Scouten,
Orange County Solid
Waste, indicating his
approval of the project.
_x_Yes ____No
15
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 61 of 69
SECTION 5.3.2 (B) CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2)
Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue
squad protection.
X_ Yes ____No Fire protection will be
provided by the Efland
Volunteer Fire
Department, rescue
service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff’s
Department.
Tab(s) 32 and 33 of the
application booklet
contains an e-mail from
Mr. David Sykes of
Orange County
Emergency Management
concerning approval of
the project.
Orange County Sheriff’s
office has also indicated
they can support the
project.
_x_Yes ____No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3)
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions
around the site.
_X Yes ___No The submitted site plan
shows the required
access points.
A recommended
condition of approval is
the applicant secure a
NC DOT drive permit
allowing for the project to
be accessed via New
Sharon Church Road
_x_Yes ____No
2
3
Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 212, we have compliance with Section 5.2.3 (B), the specific standards for 4
Special Use Permits which details the method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, method and 5
adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection, method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic 6
conditions around the site. You will have my testimony and the evidence entered into the record from Attachment 2 7
from staff comments. There will not be a septic on the property supporting the telecommunication facility. Orange 8
County Health Department indicated that the telecommunications will not impact existing septic systems. You have 9
an email from Jeff Scouten indicating he has no concerns over the approval of this project. You have in tabs 32 and 10
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 62 of 69
33 letters from Orange County Fire Marshal, David Sykes, and Orange County Sheriff’s Department indicating they 1
have no concerns over the project and with respect to Section 5.2.3 (B), method and adequacy of vehicular access 2
to the site and traffic conditions. Staff stipulates that the submitted site plan shows required access points which 3
demonstrates compliance. We have made an affirmative recommendation for all three on pages 212 and 213. 4
5
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to adopt the planning staffs recommended findings that the applicant has met its 6
burden under Section 5.3.2 (B) on page 212 and 213 as summarized by Mr. Harvey. Seconded by David Blankfard. 7
VOTE: Unanimous 8
9
10
11
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 63 of 69
SECTION 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses – General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
In accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of
Adjustment shall also
consider the following
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
NOTE: Planning
Staff does not
provide a
recommendation
on these items as
the Board is
expected to act
based on the sworn
testimony provided
at the hearing.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
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.
_ Will _Will Not Staff will remind the
Board there is the
following information
available, as submitted
by the applicant, related
to addressing this
requirement:
• The application
package and project
narrative contained
within Tab 3 of the
application booklet.
• Tab 36 of the
application booklet
contains an impact
analysis, completed
by David Smith,
indicating the project
will not impact the
value of adjacent
property.
• Tab 6 of the
application booklet
contains a site plan
denoting the projects
compliance with the
UDO.
• Tab(s) 32 and 33 of
the booklet contains
approvals from
County EMS and
Sheriff’s office.
x Will _Will
Not
3
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 64 of 69
1
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
Continued
• The application
booklet contains
evidence
demonstrating the
need for the tower,
provisions for
guaranteeing the
public’s safety and
general welfare.
2
3
Michael Harvey: On pages 214 through 217, we have the required findings for Section 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses 4
General Standards. Please note these are three findings we do not make a recommendation on because they are 5
based on the sworn testimony and evidence that are entered into the record. These are that the use will maintain or 6
promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated 7
according to the plan as submitted. We don’t make a recommendation but remind you with respect to compliance 8
with this section is the application packet contains the necessary material in our estimation to justify an affirmative 9
finding specifically in Tab 3, the application narrative. Tab 36, the Site Impact Analysis prepared by David Smith, 10
tab 6 of the application packet which has the site plan, tabs 32 and 33 of this application packet containing the 11
approval of Orange County EMS and the sheriff’s office and all the relevant information as detailed. 12
13
MOTION made by Mark Micol to find in favor that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and 14
general welfare if located where proposed based on testimony of Karen Kemerait, the attorney for the applicant that 15
the additional tower will encourage the expansion of affordable high speed 4G access for the county and provide 16
equitable access to rural underserved areas and staff’s recommended findings. Seconded by Samantha Cabe. 17
VOTE: Unanimous 18
19 20
21
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 65 of 69
SECTION 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses – General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2 3
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public
necessity, in which case
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of
contiguous property).
Will _Will Not Staff will remind the
Board there is the
following information
available, as submitted
by the applicant, related
to addressing this
requirement:
• The application
package and project
narrative contained
within Tab 3 of the
application booklet.
• Tab 36 of the
application booklet
contains an impact
analysis, completed
by David Smith,
indicating the project
will not impact the
value of adjacent
property.
• Tab 6 of the
application booklet
contains a site plan
denoting the projects
compliance with the
UDO.
x Will _Will Not
4
5
Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 216, we have compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) 2 (b) which is the use will 6
maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. You are making a determination that the use will or will not 7
maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. We will remind the board the application packet, tab 3, 8
contains a detailed narrative demonstrating compliance. Tab 36 contains the Physical Impact Analysis by David 9
Smith indicating the project will not impact the value of adjacent property. Tab 6 of the application booklet contained 10
in the site plan denoting compliance of the UDO. 11
12
MOTION made by David Blankfard that if we grant the special use permit that the cell site will maintain the value of 13
adjacent and contiguous property owners according to the project impact statement made by David Smith and the 14
staff’s recommendation. Seconded by Mark Micol. 15
VOTE: Unanimous 16 17
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 66 of 69
1
Ordinance
Requirements
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
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 plan for the
physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by
the Board of County
Commissioners.
Is __ Is Not Staff will remind the
Board there is the
following information
available, as submitted
by the applicant, related
to addressing this
requirement:
• The application
package and project
narrative contained
within Tab 3 of the
application booklet.
• Tab 36 of the
application booklet
contains an impact
analysis, completed
by David Smith,
indicating the project
will not impact the
value of adjacent
property.
• Tab 6 of the
application booklet
contains a site plan
denoting the projects
compliance with the
UDO.
x Is __ Is Not
2
Michael Harvey: On page 217 with respect to compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the location and character of 3
the use if developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and 4
the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations 5
or in the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. I will remind the 6
board in tabs 3, 36 and 6 of the application packet, you have sufficient documentation detailing this as well as the 7
application package as a whole. I will also remind the board that you have staff’s abstract in the record that provided 8
an assessment of the various Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals that we believe support the approval of this 9
project. 10
11
MOTION made by Jeff Schmitt per the requirements of Section 5.3.2. (A) as required by the UDO, this plan will be in 12
compliance with that. It has been demonstrated the plan will in fact enhance potential economic development in the 13
area and provide additional safety through having additional access to 911 emergency but there will not be additional 14
traffic to the nature of this site which will increase usage and destroy the harmony of the area and the testimony that 15
has been included in the record shows that there will be no negative impact to the value of contiguous and/or 16
property in the general area. Seconded by Mark Micol. 17
VOTE: Unanimous 18 19
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 67 of 69
1
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed a height of 199 feet above pre-construction grade as 2
detailed within the approved application package as reviewed and acted upon by the Board of 3
Adjustment at their April 22, 2014 meeting. 4
2. Existing vegetation, as detailed on the approved site plan reviewed and acted upon by the Board 5
of Adjustment at their April 22, 2014 meeting, shall be maintained as indicated. 6
3. The facility and its equipment shall comply with all federal, state and local emission requirements. 7
4. The electro-magnetic radiation levels shall be maintained compliance with all federal, state and 8
local requirements, including the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission 9
regarding emission of electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on 10
the tower, and within 30 days of the installation of any additional equipment in the future, the 11
tower owner shall provide documentation of emission levels in relation to FCC standards to the 12
County for review. In addition, the tower owner must provide documentation of emission levels 13
within five working days if so requested by Orange County. Orange County may make such 14
requests at any time, not to exceed 2 times per year. 15
5. Two ten pound 2-A:20-B:C dry chemical portable fire extinguishers shall be installed at the site at 16
a conspicuous location for use during an emergency event. 17
6. As required within Section 5.10.8 (A) (1) (g) of the UDO, the applicant shall be required to 18
provide a final copy of the installed foundation design including a geotechnical sub-surface soils 19
investigation, evaluation report, and foundation recommendation for the proposed wireless 20
support structure prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities associated with the 21
construction of the telecommunication facilities. 22
7. The applicant shall obtain a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation 23
approving the driveway access for the project off of Saddle Club Road. 24
8. Final assignment of a street address shall be completed by Orange County Land Records prior 25
to the issuance of any permit authorizing land disturbing activity on the property. 26
9. The applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the 27
initiation of and land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the telecommunication 28
facilities including, but not limited to: Building Permit, Erosion Control/Stormwater Management 29
Permit, and Zoning Compliance Permit. 30
10. Any proposed co-location of antenna on this tower shall be reviewed, acted upon, and installed in 31
accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 32
33
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the
general standards as detailed above. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health,
safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, the use being in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the
physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO
Provided the Board of Adjustment finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the Board
could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the Board makes a recommendation to
issue the permit, staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions:
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 68 of 69
11. A co-location site shall be offered to the County for the placement of antenna in support of local 1
emergency communication needs. 2
12. The applicant shall submit all necessary bonding/financial security documents to the County 3
Attorney’s office for review and approval guaranteeing the removal of the tower in the event it is 4
abandoned or unused for a period of 12 months. A cost estimate shall be provided by a qualified 5
contractor. The amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the estimate. This must be 6
completed before building permits are issued. 7
13. Telecommunication tower owners shall submit a report to the County Inspections Division 8
certifying structural and electrical integrity upon completion of the initial construction and at 9
intervals as specified within the UDO. 10
14. Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner and made available upon request to the 11
County Inspections Division during regular business hours. Inspections shall be performed as 12
specified within the UDO. 13
15. In those cases where an inspection is required, which is not performed by Orange County 14
Inspections, the applicant is required to notify the Planning Department and any applicable 15
County telecommunication consultant of the inspection and its results. 16
16. Nothing associated with the approval, development or use of the property in support of the 17
proposed telecommunication facilities shall be construed as impacting the use of the property for 18
bona-fide farm purposes. Expansion of farming activities shall not constitute a modification of 19
the special use permit as detailed within the UDO requiring a re-review of the project by the 20
Board of Adjustment. 21
17. The County’s telecommunications consultant shall issue a final Certificate of Completion upon 22
the completion of a final inspection of the constructed telecommunication facilities. Commercial 23
service cannot be provided/initiated until this final Certificate is completed and issued. 24
18. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval if the 25
use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely 26
application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of Adjustment. 27
19. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use 28
Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. 29
30
31
Michael Harvey: On page 218 and 219, staff stipulated that we have not received any information establishing the 32
grounds for making a negative finding for denial of the project; we have recommended the imposition of several 33
conditions. I will state for the record the applicant has already met most of these. Would you change the date 34
reference under numbers one and two to April 22, 2014, this meeting, as this is the meeting subject to this particular 35
application? I will also remind the board we have included a condition which we have started doing with all 36
telecommunication towers developed on farm property that nothing within this approval shall be deemed as limiting 37
or stopping the conceded use of property for farm use. You recall concerns that have been brought before this 38
board by farmers who have had telecommunication towers developed on their property, any change in the site plan 39
that has been submitted is required to come back to this board. Staff has never viewed any construction of a new 40
farm building as a change under the ordinance technically says it is. We impose this condition so we provide 41
property owners an opportunity to continue to engage in farming activities without fear of having to come back before 42
this board to seek permission. 43
44
Larry Wright: Does this include logging of the site around the tower? 45
46
Michael Harvey: It could because that is a bonafide farm activity. 47
Approved 8/11/2014
OC Board of Adjustment – 4/22/2014 Page 69 of 69
Samantha Cabe: You indicated that farming could also be logging but we also have the condition number two which 1
requires that the existing vegetation … 2
3
Michael Harvey: That is around the telecommunication tower itself. 4
5
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to approve the Special Use Permit with the conditions set forth on pages 218 6
and 219 of the abstract as amended to correct the dates of this hearing in paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 so that 7
such conditions are requirements that the application must meet in order to qualify for the Special Use Permit. 8
Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 9
VOTE: Unanimous 10
11
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to close the public hearing. Seconded by David Blankfard. 12
VOTE: Unanimous 13
14
Michael Harvey: As you may know, the planning staff has been engaged in an enforcement action with a property 15
owner in Southern Orange County concerning the purported operation of a shooting facility. After conferring with the 16
county attorney’s office, we have rescinded that notice of violation. The property owner, Mr. Kline, has approached 17
staff and suggested operational parameters which he is willing to impose upon himself as a means of addressing the 18
adjacent property owners concerns of his activities. The adjacent property owners have appealed our determination 19
to rescind the notice of violation which will be reviewed by this board at a future meeting. Planning staff in 20
consultation with the county attorney’s office rescind the initial office as it was inconsistent with certain findings in 21
recent case law and also there was a concern that the NOV as written was unsustainable so the adjacent property 22
owner will be asking the board at a future date to reverse staff’s decision. 23
24
Samantha Cabe: Where is this? 25
26
Michael Harvey: On a 34 acre undeveloped parcel of property off Angel Way near Ford Road near the Bingham 27
Woods Mobile Home Park. 28
29
Larry Wright: Will Churton Grove be appealed? 30
Michael Harvey: I have no idea. 31
32
Jeff Schmitt: This gentleman owns property and has more than just himself engaging in shooting out there? 33
34
Michael Harvey: We issued a Notice of Violation indicating he had developed a regulated facility versus simply he 35
and his family engaging in an activity. He appealed that determination arguing, essentially, it was him and his family 36
and there were no third parties. After reviewing the issue further, we determined there was insufficient evidence to 37
sustain the notice as I had written it. Also it was determined the interpretation I had made was not supported by 38
recent court cases so we rescind the notice. Within that letter we noted we would continue to monitor and 39
investigate and try to compile sufficient to justify our original finding. 40
41
Jeff Schmitt: The appeal coming before this board will be based on the fact this gentleman is using it in violation. 42
43
Michael Harvey: The neighbors are basically saying they believe we did not err and should never have rescinded 44
the notice. They are alleging I should never have rescinded the notice. 45
46
AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT 47
Motion made to adjourn. 48