HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA minutes 070813Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 1 of 82
MINUTES 1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2
JULY 8, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright, Full Member (Chair) 6
David Blankfard, Full Member (Vice Chair) 7
Karen Barrows, Full Member 8
Samantha Cabe, Alternate Member 9
Mark Micol, Alternate Member 10
Jeffrey Schmitt, Full Member 11
12
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 13
Debra Graham, Board Secretary 14
James Bryan, Staff Attorney 15
16
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 17
18
Larry Wright called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. Larry Wright: We do not have a quorum but we are waiting 19
on one board member. 20
21
AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 22
23 SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER 24 25
Debra Graham swore in new member Jeffrey Schmitt. He was then excused because he did not hear testimony at the 26
previous meeting. 27 28
Larry Wright: Can we swear the persons here in before the last member arrives? 29
30
James Bryan: I don’t see that it would be a problem since there will be no testimony, etc. 31
32
The following persons were sworn in: 33
Gary Dixon
Art Menius
David Smith
S. Diane Riggsbee
Karen Kemerait
Margot Lester
Rusty Monroe
James DeGraffenreid, Jr.
Linda Ward
LaShaun F. Ward
Liz Hill
Bryan Lanier
Libbie Hough
Stephen M. Howard
Armand Lencher
Beverly Roberson
Lauren Lloyd
Helen A. Figueror
Maria G. Patino
34
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 2 of 82
1
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2
a. June 10, 2013 3 4
Mark Micol: Page 84, Line 28 should read, “Why was that area chosen? Was it due to topography or to keep it out of 5
the farmland? Is there a particular reason you didn’t move it over 100 feet?” 6
7
Motion made by Karen Barrows to approve the minutes with the noted correction. Seconded by David Blankfard. 8
Vote: Unanimous 9
10
11
AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE 12
13
The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct 14
themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any 15
member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave 16
the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the 17
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as 18
cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. 19 20
The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local 21
regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by 22
the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled 23
and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair 24
reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly 25
repetitious’ and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be 26
noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be 27
consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and 28
equitable hearing for all parties. 29
30
31
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 3 of 82
1 AGENDA ITEM 5: CASE A-2-13: Class B Special Use Permit Proposing Development of Telecommunication 2
Facilities at 1426 Old Greensboro Road (PIN 9768-22-3878) 3
4
In accordance with Section(s) 2.7 Special Uses, 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 Application of Use 5
Standards – Special Uses, and 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Facilities of the UDO American Tower 6
and AT and T Mobility have submitted a Class B Special Use Permit application seeking a permit to erect a 7
199 foot telecommunication tower on a 28 acre parcel of property at 1426 Old Greensboro Road further 8
identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9768-22-3878. 9
10
As detailed within the application, the applicant wishes to erect a telecommunication tower within a 100 foot 11
by 100 foot leased area on the south-west portion of the aforementioned parcel. There will be an equipment 12
cabinet at the base of the tower to house equipment for the various communication providers utilizing the 13
tower within a 60 foot by 60 foot fenced compound. 14
15
Access to the proposed facility is proposed to be through a proposed drive off of Sesame Road. 16
17
(This item was continued from the June 10, 2013 Board of Adjustment regular meeting.) 18
19
Larry Wright: I would like to summarize what has happened since a month ago. Mr. Harvey introduced the application 20
and a permit for American Tower and AT&T Mobility and then Mrs. Kemerait with the law firm of Styers, Kemerait and 21
Mitchell, who represents American Tower and AT&T, gave her statement and then we heard from Mr. Stephen 22
Howard, who is duly sworn and he is affiliated and is a specialist that is here supplementing the applicant for American 23
Tower and AT&T. Then we heard from David Smith, the appraiser and then Mr. Jeremy Browner, the vice-chair of 24
Economic Development and Public Policy and then from Jill House, from American Tower and Kristen Smith who lives 25
on Old Greensboro Highway who supported the telecommunications infrastructure. We heard from Desiree Goldman 26
of Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. Mr. Aaron Nelson of the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce and Mr. 27
Gary Dixon who requested a 30-day adjournment. Mr. Dixon, please approach the board. 28
29
Michael Harvey: May I remind the board what we have already in the record. The staff’s abstract from the June 10, 30
2013 meeting including property maps, staff comments on the proposal, notification of materials and certification of 31
mailing and a special use permit. We also have the full application packet in your binder with 41 tabs/attachments 32
entered into the record and a copy of the UDO. The applicant also entered maps into the record, and the propagation 33
study maps. 34
35
Gary Dixon: (Distributed copies of presentation). My name is Gary Dixon and I have been sworn. I have one witness 36
that was not sworn in. (Witnesses were sworn in). First, I would like to thank you for being here and giving us another 37
chance. As you see, this is a farm we live beside; we have a subdivision to the side. The next picture is a 38
demonstration of what a 20 story tower would look like. The third picture gives you a better representation of where 39
our neighborhood is in relation to the tower. It shows there is a neighborhood, it keeps going out here and on the next 40
map, and there is a cluster of about 30 families that live off the side. At the entrance to our Pineview Drive there is 41
where the tower is proposed. I want to be clear, we are definitely not against cell towers but we are, as a community, 42
against the improper placement of a cell tower being directly visible on the way in and out of the neighborhood and 43
also from the other street. The UDO was put in place to enhance and preserve to enhance and preserve our property 44
values if one is granted and also preserve asthetics and as you can see my concern is that towering height being right 45
in the middle of a beautiful landscape… is that in harmony with the farm? What we really haven’t’ seen or talked about 46
is an overall plan of placement of towers in the county. You have somewhere there is a location and there is 47
somewhat of signal gap there, which is debatable but where AT&T needs to place but they have actually asked for the 48
maximum height that the law allows without going into other territory and there has been no talk of the least intrusive 49
effective of the tower. What can we do to make it least intrusive? My thought is simply why can’t we simply put it 50
somewhere else? I know AT&T has given a lot of testimony for the tower and we are for towers but do we need it at 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 4 of 82
the head of the neighborhood. The part of it enhancing or preserving the value, as you see by photographs that has 1
the homes, this photograph was taken from the third home back. It is not the closest to the tower. There are three 2
more homes closer. From every angle of that tower at that height, setback from the road is approximately 250 feet, 3
God forbid, east to west, it will go across the road or hit a tree or cause a tree to fall. As you can see by the 4
photograph, those trees are actually falling so it is already a dangerous situation in the first place. 5
6
Larry Wright: Where is that? 7
8
Gary Dixon: That is on Sesame Road. 9
10
Larry Wright: Where does this impact the AT&T site? 11
12
Gary Dixon: Those trees are coming from that side falling toward Sesame Road; I am saying that is the area and we 13
already have an existing problem with stuff falling in the road. 14
15
Larry Wright: It looks like it is quite far from Sesame Road on this map. The wooded area enclosing the tower looks 16
like it is quite a distance. 17
18
Gary Dixon: That is not the actual trees; there is another line of trees. They are in the right of way. They don’t belong 19
to ….. 20
21
Larry Wright: This map… 22
23
Gary Dixon: That is Sesame Road coming… That is just a photograph. 24
25
Larry Wright: We are supposed to be looking at these trees that are falling so where are they on this map? 26
27
Gary Dixon: I can show you… they are closer to the road. They are right on Sesame Road, these here. These 28
actually block the view of this. You can’t really see them because it just a small area of trees that are constantly falling. 29
30
Larry Wright: According to our minutes, the owner and the applicant have agreed to retain and get an easement for 31
this cluster of trees to serve as a buffer and protect the integrity of the landscape you are addressing now. 32
33
Gary Dixon: I feel like this (the proposed tower) is not characteristic of the farm. The UDO being here to protect the 34
homeowner to preserve and enhance our value so what have I got is some realtors and local representation. I would 35
ask the board for one other thing, please accept our memorandum from our attorney and make it part of the record 36
that ATA&T has given mounds of testimony so I would ask you to accept that as part of the record. The attorney is 37
Andrew Campanelli and he was our consultant and hired by us to represent the neighbors. We had to educate 38
ourselves about cell towers and we had no representation. 39
40
Larry Wright: Who are your realtors? 41
42
Gary Dixon: Armand Lenchek and Helen Figueror and I have talked to several others. I spoke at great length to both 43
of these. 44
45
Armand Lenchek: My name is Armand Lenchek and I am a realtor with Caldwell Banker and I have been sworn. I 46
have been a real estate agent for 10 years in the Triangle Area mainly working in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and all of 47
Orange County and I also cover Durham. I am, in modesty, one of the top five selling agents of the Chapel 48
Hill/Carrboro market. I know the market really well. I have been selling a lot of property for 10 years and Gary has 49
asked me to come and address one question, will this cell tower enhance the neighborhood or seriously detract from 50
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 5 of 82
the property values of this neighborhood. There is only one answer and that is it will detract the property values of this 1
neighborhood. 2
3
Larry Wright: And what basis do you make that statement? Are you an appraiser? 4
5
Armand Lenchek: No. I am not an appraiser. I am not allowed to take money for giving an opinion on the value of a 6
property. 7
8
Larry Wright: What we have to deal with here is that we need evidence like impact value and things of this nature. So 9
what can you… we can hear you say that but there are more attorneys in this room than board members and I can say 10
they know what hearsay is so we have to have evidence from what you say. 11
12
Armand Lenchek: The evidence is that I have worked with many buyers and sellers over the years, specifically buyers 13
taking them to look at properties and I can specifically think of one incidence where I showed the buyer a beautiful 14
home, in North Durham, in the Northgate neighborhood. She loved this house, it was perfect for her and we had been 15
looking for a house for her for many, many months and it was tough to find the perfect house. This was the perfect 16
house for her and she was falling in love with this house until she looked over to her right and right on Roxboro Road, 17
there is a huge cell tower there. This cell tower is designed to be camouflaged to make it look like a big tree but it 18
obviously was not a tree so the minute she saw the cell tower, she said, I cannot buy this house. I am afraid of the 19
radio emissions coming from this. I haven’t really seen a lot of studies. 20
21
Larry Wright: There are. This is all hearsay. I have a cell tower in the back of my house and it was built after I moved 22
there. I am very happy it is there. It is in the middle of a cluster of woods and I am happy it is there so she didn’t like 23
it, I do and it has benefited in our neighborhood market so there is more hearsay. 24
25
Armand Lenchek: May I asked what neighborhood you are in? 26
27
Larry Wright: Cedar Grove. This is immaterial, we need evidence. You are talking about one woman, we need 28
evidence. 29
30
Mark Micol: Do your customers ask you about the potential for high speed internet or bandwidth when they approach 31
you about a sale? 32
33
Armand Lenchek: Yes. They certainly do. 34
35
Mark Micol: Do you think that washes out the negative side? 36
37
Armand Lenchek: I don’t think so at all. The general fear of cell towers is both a visual aspect and a possible 38
radiation. Those two aspects, time and time again, I have had buyers tell me I don’t want to be near it. It is the same 39
as high tension power lines. People don’t want to buy houses that back up to high tension power lines and it is tough 40
for us as real estate agents to quantify how much less a house will sell for when it backed up to a power line but we 41
know it does, it simply does. I have a house on the market in Colvard Farms and I cannot get anyone to look at that 42
house because everyone knows that it backs up to the high tension power lines. It is the least expensive, practical 43
square foot, in Colvard Farms right now and nobody is looking at this house. It is a gorgeous house but I can’t do 44
anything to sell it. In my mind, cell towers are the same thing as high tension power lines. I know this neighborhood 45
down Sesame, I have actually tried listing some of the homes in that neighborhood, and it is a tough neighborhood to 46
sell. It is not one of our high dollar neighborhoods and if we add this cell tower to this neighborhood, it will depress 47
those property values further. That is my feeling about it; that is my experience of over 10 years of working with 48
buyers and sellers. I also have lot for sale at 224 Red Run. It is a very small footage and it is literally 100 yards away 49
from where this cell tower is supposed to be. It is the next left to the west. I will show you where it is. This is a 50
beautiful lot. It is a little over 11 acres. My sellers had planned to build a million dollar property and they are not going 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 6 of 82
to do it now and we have put the lot on the market and it listed for $375,000. When I told my seller that there will be a 1
cell phone tower put right up the street, she was really upset. 2
3
Samantha Cabe: It was her decision to refrain from building a million dollar house …. 4
5
Armand Lenchek: I am sorry, I didn’t mean to give you that impression, she had already decided not to build a million 6
dollar house and I am trying to sell the lot. 7
8
Samantha Cabe: Just for the record, she made the decision not to build the house before she knew about the cell 9
tower. 10
11
Armand Lenchek: Correct. I am saying now that she knows there will be a cell tower up the street within a visible 12
distance of her lot, it will probably drop the price. 13
14
Samantha Cabe: Wouldn’t it be the lack of offers that would make her drop the price, not the existence of the cell 15
tower. 16
17
Armand Lenchek: The cell tower is going to be perceived as being one of the main reasons we won’t be getting an 18
offer. 19
20
Samantha Cabe: But you don’t know that you won’t get an offer because it is not listed yet, right? 21
22
Armand Lenchek: It is listed. 23
24
Samantha Cabe: How long has it been listed? 25
26
Armand Lenchek: Over a year. 27
28
Samantha Cabe: You haven’t got an acceptable offer on the property without the cell tower? 29
30
Armand Lenchek: That is correct. We just recently reduced the price from $398,900 to $375,000 and this will 31
probably make her reduce the price even further. 32
33
Helen Figueror: I have been sworn in. I have my own personal experience with power lines and it is also the same 34
impressions. I brought some quotes about people saying, beautiful home but I don’t want to live next to these things. 35
They are visible when you come into my neighborhood but the interesting part is that we have had three sellers in my 36
neighborhood that just closed last month and one of the homes sold which didn’t have the power lines and the other 37
home didn’t have a problem with the power lines. One sold for $15,000 more and it wasn’t as nice a house as this 38
house. I personally know the other house because I had it listed before and the other house that sold did not have the 39
problem with the power lines. I know the other two were visibly, as far as quality for the home, they were similar but 40
the house that was the best house with the largest yard had at the very end of the yard, one of those big tower things 41
and people would come in and say I don’t want to live next to the power lines and there has been research now. The 42
thing is that you can get two kinds of research. You can get from Duke Power there is no problem, you’re not going to 43
get sick and you have other research that came from Europe, that ….. 44
45
Larry Wright: What you need to do when you deal with this again with your customers is to have them look at the 46
National Library of Medicine which is the premier medical library in the world… have them go to Medline Plus and key 47
in telecommunication towers… it talks about radio frequency, etc. There is no direct evidence that gathered literature 48
from all over the world, there is no evidence that radio frequencies from cell phone towers and all kinds, tissue 49
penetration and everything, I know about this. You need to consult that and that will answer your question. The 50
studies are not definitive. 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 7 of 82
1
Helen Figueror: I live right next to power lines. When I moved here I had very few houses to buy and I only had two 2
weeks to buy a house and the house was new construction and it was the best house to buy but I was not aware of all 3
these problems of trying to sell houses. I have here at least four things I pulled out of my old files, when I had the 4
house on the market, they don’t want to live next to power lines. I have heard people say I am afraid that I don’t want 5
to take a risk for my children to get leukemia; I don’t want to take that risk. Those few studies were out there. 6
7
Samantha Cabe: Have you had any direct experience with cellular communication towers because what you have told 8
us is about your experience, difficulties about selling a home or witnessed difficulties with a home selling that are next 9
to power lines but do you have direct knowledge of difficulty of selling a home within the proximity of a cellular tower? 10
11
Helen Figueror: I have been told by other agents…. 12
13
Samantha Cabe: For you? 14
15
Helen Figueror: For me, it is still the same perception, you still have that radiation, you still have the noise and if you 16
are very close and the value goes down. If you can buy a house on property that is away from those things, people 17
will go there. If you have two houses of equal property and equal price, they are not going to buy next to a power line. 18
I know when I sell my house, it will be less than other people would get if they were in a different neighborhood 19
without the power lines. 20
21
Mark Micol: I will ask you the same question, do your customers ask you about the availability of high speed internet 22
and accessibility when you are selling a home? 23
24
Helen Figueror: Sure. Everybody likes it. 25
26
Mark Micol: If you don’t have internet accessibility, is that a negative? 27
28
Helen Figueror: It is a negative. There was one in the country. It is a negative but I think they need to be somewhere 29
you are not going to be looking out your window….and also I know from a business standpoint that people will not buy 30
the house if it has that in your backyard and I do have it in my backyard. Luckily, I don’t have the big tower but the 31
other house that sold for a lot less had it right there. 32
33
Mark Micol: For the record, you don’t have any comps, comparable home prices that show the degradation in price? 34
35
Helen Figueror: I could have brought them but I didn’t bring them because everyone said it was the same perception, 36
people don’t want to live next to them. Actually, I have been out to the Sesame Street Road, it is also a small road so 37
the values still are affected. 38
39
Michael Harvey: For the record, we are labeling Mr. Dixon’s handout as Exhibit One. I would like the county’s 40
telecommunication consultant, Mr. Rusty Monroe, to address comments made with relations to emissions. 41
42
Karen Kemerait: I believe the Mr. Campanili is in New York. 43
44
Rusty Monroe: I am Rusty Monroe, the county’s consultant on this issue. Federal Law prohibits the use of information 45
relating to RF Emissions, radiation, as being grounds from denial unless they do not comply with the FCCs regulations 46
or guidelines. State law also prohibits the county from requiring the provision of that information or taking RF 47
Emissions into account. You can argue both sides of the case, there is ample evidence. People make like, may not 48
like, but the fact is that you are not allowed, unless you can prove they are not complying with the FCC standards. 49
50
Karen Barrows: That is because they consider it safe? 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 8 of 82
1
Rusty Monroe: The FCC considers it safe as long as they comply with their standards. They said you can find all 2
kinds of arguments on both sides of the issue. The FCC is reopening the issue based on a lot of pressure. As of now, 3
that is the law. I have been sworn in. 4
5
Michael Harvey: Mr. Dixon, is there any more evidence? 6
7
Gary Dixon: I have a comment. We are not against cell towers, but the property placement of it. I have heard no talk 8
about any other places, maybe minimizing the height to make it less intrusive, have less impact to preserve and 9
enhance our neighborhood. To preserve and enhance is what the UDO was entitled to do. That is what we have it in 10
place for. I would like to see it utilized in this instance. The preservation of this nice countryside. This thing sticks out 11
like a sore thumb. It is 20 stories, why does it have to be so tall? There are 30 families with children there. Those 12
things collect ice in the winter. Where will the ice go when it melts? Will if fall on the cattle, the veterinarian treating 13
the cattle, where is the ice going to go from 20 stories up when it melts and starts falling? That is a common sense 14
question. These things do fall. That is the whole idea of giving you the pictures just to give you a better picture. I 15
wasn’t trying to persuade, I want you to actually get a better picture of the neighborhood. Every picture I have seen is 16
from the third property down, not from the one that is close by. I simply wanted to give a clearer picture and knowing 17
what these do to the values, it is supposed to preserve. Where does the enhancement of the value of the property, 18
where does it start, does it start at the closest property to the base of the tower or is it enhancing and preserving the 19
property a mile away. It is so objective. 20
21
Samantha Cabe: A question for our attorney, the statement of the Ordinance Section 5.3.2.a.2.b which sets forth the 22
requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property unless the use is a public necessity 23
in which case, the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Do you have a definition or 24
guidance for us about what a public necessity may be? 25
26
James Bryan: I would like to defer to staff. 27
28
Rusty Monroe: State law does not deem it a utility. 29
30
Samantha Cabe: What do you mean deemed a utility? 31
32
Rusty Monroe: It is not defined as a utility, it is not regulated in a number of respects the way utilities are, as regards 33
to necessity, and I will defer to your attorney. 34
35
Samantha Cabe: If public necessity was a term of art or if there is case law that gives examples of what a public 36
necessity would be because we have heard testimony about the need for cellular communications in that area of the 37
county because you need 911 communications in case your car breaks down and there are areas out there without 38
communication and I wonder whether this rises to the level of public necessity and the attorney for American Tower 39
would have something to say about that as to whether they are contending this is a public necessity and therefore we 40
would not need to consider whether it would maintain or enhance the value of the property. 41
42
Karen Kemerait: I think both, like Mr. Monroe said, that telecommunications towers are not regulated as public utilities. 43
That does not mean they are not a public necessity and some public utilitie s are not considered to be public necessity. 44
I think in our modern day society that many would believe that telecommunication towers would be a public necessity. 45
I don’t think you would necessarily need to reach that issue because we have already provided what is required by the 46
ordinance that shows this will enhance or maintain the value of contiguous property so I think that the evidence of 47
record demonstrates that. 48
49
Michael Harvey: From staff’s perspective, it is our contention there is only technically one body that can make the 50
determination if something is a public necessity and that is the BOCC. From our standpoint, we have never had a 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 9 of 82
telecommunication facility as regulated by local regulations be designated as a public necessity and therefore exempt 1
from compliance with this standard. The issue becomes whether or not there is sufficient evidence in the record that 2
either proves or refutes the notion that it will maintain or enhance value of contiguous property. It doesn’t have to do 3
both. It is an either or proposition. You have information in the record; you have testimony this evening from Mr. 4
Dixon and two other real estate agents who refute the claims made by Mr. Smith. It is up to the board to determine 5
whether or not the evidence that has been entered into the record proves compliance or demonstrates the project will 6
not comply. It has always been my feeling and my interpretation that it is the elected officials are the only body that 7
can make that form of determination that all applicants for the special use permit are required to provide that 8
documentation unless directed otherwise by the BOCC. 9
10
Michael Harvey: The question is how the board wishes to proceed. Ms. Kemerait was in the middle of her 11
presentation last month. She had just finished introducing evidence from her witness, Mr. Smith, the appraisal 12
information which you have already pointed out Mr. Chairman; I think it would be appropriate to see if Ms. Kemerait 13
has anything to add to the record and then get to the list of who is signed up to speak. 14
15
Larry Wright: I think that is reasonable. 16
17
Karen Kemerait: I do have additional information to provide briefly and I would also like the opportunity of rebuttal and 18
sum up our case as well. I would like to pass out information about the conservation easement that we spoke about at 19
the last hearing. 20
21
Michael Harvey: We will call this Applicant Exhibit 2. 22
23
Karen Kemerait: I would also like to thank the board for your time and patience because as I mentioned in the last 24
hearing, this is a very important application for AT&T and American Tower and for many of the residences and 25
businesses in Orange County. One of the questions asked of me and American Tower and Mr. and Mrs. Yow, who 26
are here again tonight, was whether Mr. and Mrs. Yow would agree to some type of conservation easement so the 27
trees surrounding the tower site would be protected. At the last hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Yow indicated they would be 28
willing to agree to that but we were not able to provide any specifics. Since the time of the hearing, we have prepared 29
what I have provided you, which is a map showing the area in which trees would be preserved and as condition of 30
approval of the special use permit application assuming the board approves the application, we would agree to provide 31
a conservation easement that would be recorded in Orange County that would be consistent with the information I am 32
going to describe and that is consistent with the map I have provided to you. Basically, that map is showing the tower 33
site along with the trees on Sesame Road which is directly to the west of the tower site. We are proposing a large 34
conservation area that will protect the trees between the tower site and Sesame Road and will also protect the trees 35
located to the north and south of the tower site. The property is not, Mr. and Mrs. Yow do not use this property for tree 36
farming, they use it for cattle farming so they have no interest in removing any trees but this will ensure in case 37
something were to happen and there was a future owner, these trees would be preserved. The conservation 38
easement would be; first, there would be a 30 foot no clearing buffer that would surround the area that would have to 39
be cleared so the tower can be located; secondly, we will provide that the trees and vegetation located within the 40
stream buffer will remain undisturbed and the stream buffer. The stream buffer runs from the north to the south of the 41
property so the entire stream buffer area will be protected. In addition, the vegetation to the northwest and the 42
southwest of the tower site that will be located outside of the 30 foot no clearing buffer and is also located outside the 43
stream buffer, that will be the area marked in red on page C1 of the site plans, also shall not be cleared so the area 44
surrounded in red and including the stream buffer which will run from the north to the south of the property will be 45
protected and part of the conservation easement. 46
47
Also, one of the questions we answered in part but not fully dealt with AT&T’s plans for better coverage in Orange 48
County and at the time we did not have propagation maps that showed that the coverage that AT&T has planned in 49
this area of Orange County and I had stated that a bit more generally that AT&T is planning to make a large 50
investment and commitment in Orange County to help improve telecommunications coverage. Stephen Howard can 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 10 of 82
help me show the maps. The first map is the map of the area and this is the tower sight. This shows the general area 1
we are talking about; the coverage that is currently available and will be available and this is the tower site application. 2
This shows the roads. The second map is this map. This is the tower site location and surrounding it is the pink and 3
white and that means no coverage whatsoever and the pink area means very unreliable coverage. It does show there 4
is coverage in these areas moving west of the tower site with greatly insufficient coverage. 5
6
Larry Wright: Is this coverage for AT&T or Verizon or everything? 7
8
Karen Kemerait: For AT&T only. The third map shows the coverage that AT&T has planned for this area of the 9
county and the sites that have the dark blue or purple colors are locations where there is already coverage. 10
11
Samantha Cabe: From existing towers? 12
13
Karen Kemerait: This is the coverage that is currently available and this is the tower site for the application and these 14
areas are proposed sites. As you can see, there will still be more coverage needed in Orange County in order to have 15
an area in which the entire county has sufficient coverage but it is a very significant step in the right direction if you 16
compare the difference between AT&T moving forward with its plan with the right areas and what will be available 17
once AT&T’s plans have been approved. This tower application before the board today is a really significant one 18
which I think there is such great interest from the Chamber and from members of the community because it is the first 19
piece of the puzzle in which it is a critical piece for the coverage that will be provided subsequently. Of course, if we do 20
not have coverage in that area, we can still move forward with the other sites but there would be a very significant gap 21
in coverage moving toward Chapel Hill in the area in which you want to have the different sites tie into one another so 22
this is what AT&T currently has planned and funded for Orange County. This is the additional information I wanted to 23
provide. 24
25
Samantha Cabe: Did you provide 8 ½ by 11 copies to submit into the record? 26
27
Karen Kemerait: No, but I can provide these later after the hearing. 28
29
Samantha Cabe: Is that okay? 30
31
James Bryan: Can you leave those? 32
33
Karen Kemerait: I can ask. 34
35
Michael Harvey: Those will have to be left; there is no way around that. 36
37
Karen Kemerait: I can also leave the orientation map. 38
39
Mark Micol: Will this tower have any impact on emergency communication at all in Orange County? 40
41
Karen Kemerait: Yes. It will have an impact on emergency communication for the customers of AT&T because in 42
times of storms, hurricanes, disaster types of situations, the land line system goes down. Typically what happens is 43
the telecommunications coverage is all the coverage, reliable form of coverage, telephone coverage. We also are 44
going to allow, as part of the application, to allow the county to place its emergency equipment on this tower. That is 45
one of the requirements of the ordinance. 46
47
Mark Micol: They will do that after the offer is made? 48
49
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 11 of 82
Michael Harvey: Without jumping the gun, yes, the ordinance does require it and, if this board sees fit to approve this 1
tower application, there is a condition requiring the offering of an antenna site, which the county can refuse, but the 2
offer has to be made. So yes they have to offer us a site for that purpose. 3
4
Larry Wright: We had testimony previously in the first half of this session that Verizon, has access to Verizon towers 5
and you could use a Verizon phone in this area if needed… Did you take a look for possible co-location sites on 6
Verizon towers in this area? 7
8
Karen Kemerait: We did and there are no existing towers within the search range. That has been confirmed with Mr. 9
Harvey as well. There are no existing towers that AT&T could co-locate on. 10
11
Michael Harvey: I had testimony in the last meeting indicating that in the application package there is a map showing 12
existing cell tower locations and this is an area where there are no existing cell towers so they are required to exhaust 13
co-location opportunities before they submit the application. 14
15
David Blankfard: How is it that Verizon can provide service to this area and AT&T cannot? 16
17
Rusty Monroe: Each service provider’s network is designed differently. They are designed from different directions 18
and they do have a facility that is close enough to provide some service in this area. They are not able to just overlay 19
these facilities. They are all designed from different areas using different signal strengths. Each one is an entity unto 20
itself or a self-supporting entity. This facility, we have more than reasonable probability of expecting at least one 21
carrier if not two or more who want to co-locate on this facility especially going forward because the issue will become, 22
once what Ms. Kemerait has described, is done, the issue now becoming a case is less and less coverage and more 23
and more its capacity and you need a lot more site a lot closer together, not necessarily towers but for reasons of 24
capacity because these facilities have a very finite capability of handling a given amount of traffic, they have to be a lot 25
closer together. 26
27
Samantha Cabe: I have a question for either of you. If other carriers decide to co-locate on this tower, will it affect the 28
appearance or size of the tower in any way? 29
30
Karen Kemerait: No, it will not. The ordinance requires that this is part of our application materials that it has to be 31
room on the tower for AT&T and three additional carriers so AT&T is already committed and that is why we are here 32
today. That is why we are here today, we should not be here if it was not a carrier that needed coverage in the area 33
and then three additional carriers can co-locate on American Tower's tower. The benefit of that is these other carriers 34
will not need to look for new tower sites because they can co-locate on this carrier and the ordinance requires that if 35
there is a tower in the search area, they have to co-locate on it before they can look for a site for a new tower. 36
37
Samantha Cabe: The size and shape is already built out for four carriers, AT&T and three additional ones so it would 38
not change the way it looks, the size or height? 39
40
Karen Kemerait: The height in one of the conditions is that it will be a 199-foot telecommunications tower and one of 41
the other requirements of the ordinance is that the antennas have to be flush mounted so when AT&T puts on its 42
antennas, they will be flush mounted so they will not be visible or barely visible at all and the same situation will be for 43
the additional carriers that locate their antennas on the tower after AT&T puts its tower on it. The height of the tower 44
will not be extended for additional towers. 45
46
Karen Barrows: In Mr. Dixon’s exhibit on page 12, he is talking about the balloon testing photos you have submitted 47
and none of them really show an impact for the property owners closest to the tower. Was there a reason for that or is 48
that true? 49
50
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 12 of 82
Karen Kemerait: I think it is a very accurate balloon test and the balloon test does show the areas. I did want to 1
mention that Jackie Hicks, who is a partner with Mr. Monroe, was present for the balloon test and saw the balloon test 2
photographs and she has confirmed that they are indeed accurate and she verified the results of the balloon test. 3
4
Karen Barrows: I wasn’t questioning the balloon test. I was wondering about some of the closest impacting 5
properties… 6
7
Karen Kemerait: The balloon test photographs have been shown in areas where the tower is visible and also where it 8
is not. On page 3 of the balloon test, it shows the tower location and areas where the tower is not visible and it shows 9
areas where there tower would be visible. For example, the area around number 6, which is the properties that Mr. 10
Dixon was discussing does show those where the top of the tower will be visible. It is important to note that from a 11
majority of the vantage points, the tower will not be visible and the areas where the tower will be visible only the upper 12
portion will be visible, the base of the tower will not be visible so I disagree with the statement provided in here and 13
unfortunately I have not had time to read the entire memorandum but I believe that this balloon test and this 14
photograph are entirely accurate and as I mentioned before, Ms. Hicks was involved in reviewing this report and her 15
opinion was that it was a fair and accurate balloon test report and Mr. Monroe may be able to speak to that as well. 16
17
Larry Wright: To follow up on that, do we have a map of properties adjacent to this property or property owners? 18
There are some that are across the street. 19
20
Gary Dixon: The one I presented has…. 21
22
Michael Harvey: Tab 10 has the affidavit from Patricia Butler concerning identification of all property owners that live in 23
the required distance. There is an 11x17 map that shows the properties within the notification distance. It also 24
provides the mailing address listings for everyone within 1,000 feet as determined by Orange County Land records. If 25
that is the map you are thinking of… 26
27
Karen Kemerait: I did want to emphasize that the balloon photographs are accurate. Mr. Monroe may be able to add 28
something to that since Ms. Hicks is not here. 29
30
Michael Harvey: There are several people signed up to speak if the applicant is finished. 31
32
Samantha Cabe: Did Mr. Monroe have something to say about my question? 33
34
Rusty Monroe: You had asked a question about can it or will it be increased in height. I wanted the board to know 35
that as of October 1, no community may limit the height of any structure. They are allowed to, as of right ; increase in 36
10% increments the height of any structure. 37
38
Samantha Cabe: That has been a recent change in our …… 39
40
Michael Harvey: That is state law. 41
42
Samantha Cabe: Since our last meeting? 43
44
Rusty Monroe: They are allowed under state law, as of right, come in and take a 200 foot tower and as long as it is 45
done in 10% increments, add to it to the height. 46
47
Larry Wright: Does that statute also side step the Special Use Class B? 48
49
Rusty Monroe: Yes sir. 50
51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 13 of 82
Larry Wright: So after October, this session …. 1
2
Rusty Monroe: This session would still be held for a new tower. We are talking about increasing the height of existing 3
facilities. 4
5
Mark Micol: What is the maximum buildout of this tower? 6
7
Rusty Monroe: I believe it is 199 feet. 8
9
Mark Micol: What is the maximum for it to go higher? What is the maximum that you could incrementally increase? 10
11
Rusty Monroe: We would have to have structural redone on those increased heights. I don’t know what the current 12
structure capability is. I know they can be reinforced if necessary. 13
14
Samantha Cabe: And if they go higher than 200 feet, there is the requirement that they have the lighting? 15
16
Rusty Monroe: Yes, but that the county can control. It is allowed to prohibit towers that need to be lighted. 17
18
Larry Wright: That would go through a Class A special use permit? 19
20
Michael Harvey: That is the argument staff would make whether or not that would be legally defensible in a court of 21
law, we have no clue yet. 22
23
Rusty Monroe: We are not commenting on the positives or negatives on this, that is for your judgment. All we want to 24
do is to let you make informed decisions and determinations. 25
26
Karen Kemerait: I would like to point out that based upon increasing the height of the tower and having the issue 27
about being lit and getting FAA approval for a lit tower and having to come back for potentially a special use permit 28
hearing, for a Class A Special Use Permit, this tower is designed to accommodate four carriers and it is not an 29
insignificant proposition to increase the height of the tower that has already been constructed and designed at 199 feet 30
so there is room for three additional carriers at 199 feet. 31
32
Larry Wright: If you put a lightning rod on this, does it require light? 33
34
Karen Kemerait: To be more accurate, the tower itself is 195 feet with a four foot lightning bar so the tower itself with 35
that four foot lightning rod is 199 feet. 36
37
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman that is stipulated in the application. If Ms. Kemerait is finished, the next person to 38
speak is Art Menius. 39
40
Art Menius: I live in White Cross and I have been sworn in. I appreciate the chance to speak. These devices are a 41
miracle. They let us, in many different ways, conduct worldwide business and still have the rural life in Orange County 42
that we value. Some 30 years ago, I would have given anything to live like we live and work like we want to work 43
without having to make so many compromises. The compromise we have to make is the towers. I was gone from 44
home for almost eight years and half that time, I was at the end of the road at the top of the mountain in southeast 45
Kentucky in a county where the per capita income was $11,000.00. I had hardwired internet 10 times faster than I 46
have here in Orange County. I had reliable wireless all the time, up on my mountain top or driving through my holler in 47
this remote location but I come back home to Orange County and my house in White Cross, I could walk from here to 48
the chairman and go from 4G to 3G to 1X to no service and back up through 1X and 3G and 4G by the time I got to 49
the chairman. My house is a mismatch of service and if I don’t hold my head just right, I will lose a call. I can’t do 50
business that way. Just this morning, I had to defer two calls to face meetings in Carrboro this afternoon because we 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 14 of 82
could not maintain a conversation over the wireless cell phone in White Cross. That is no way to do business. The 1
lack of competition may be part of it. The lack of towers is definitely part of it. I ask the board to approve this 2
application. We badly need it to thrive and grow in rural Orange County without losing what keeps Orange County 3
rural. 4
5
Larry Wright: Who is your carrier? 6
7
Art Menius: My carrier is Verizon. 8
9
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, David Smith is the next person signed up to speak. Unless Mr. Smith has anything to 10
add, the next person is Diane Riggsbee. 11
12
Diane Riggsbee: My name is Diane Riggsbee and I have been sworn. I am a realtor as well as a resident. My parents 13
bought property down Sesame Road and I actually want to point out that they drew a map but failed to indicate 14
Sesame on the map so if you look at it from where this tower is supposed to go, it is going to be Sesame coming right 15
down here but we don’t see Sesame at all and the residents that are here either grew up on Sesame or came, 16
because my family bought a house in 1963 so we have owned property for 50 years down Sesame Road when there 17
was no development going on. The Neville’s owned property and Betty Sue married John Yow so they own property 18
all around Sesame and the Perry’s own the rest of it and on the other end, Watts Johnson owned a 12 acre tract that 19
bordered Greensboro Highway. They don’t show the tree lining. 50 years ago, there was a dirt road, I had to 20
condemn John Yow’s property and Watts Johnson’s property just to get the road paved. He didn’t want to move the 21
tree line but now he is agreeing to but he will have enough money to maintain trees because when it is paid to have 22
the cell tower there, he will have more than enough money but he didn’t want to move the fence because his fencing 23
for his cattle was the tree line so we had to condemn the property. I had to collect money from the residents just to get 24
a paved road after it moved sometime in the 80s up to first position, DOT went through that process and we finally got 25
it paved. Now he is agreeing to do it. John owns property, if you remember; his address is Greensboro Highway so 26
why is this cell tower bordering Sesame Road. He can’t see the cell tower from where he lives. I dare say that John 27
and Betty will not be able to see this cell tower at all but the residents that live down Sesame will see it every day when 28
they go home and if you want to put it somewhere, put it where they can see. He has properties on both sides of this 29
driveway going down Greensboro Highway. Why didn’t you choose to put it on the front lawn where he can get a good 30
signal? There are no trees blocking it there at all. It is just amazing to me to have to be involved when there is a 31
financial gain for him and he agreeing to maintain tree line that he would not agree to when we were just trying to get it 32
paved …. ‘cause he was not affected. He didn’t have to bother with the dust or anything coming off Sesame Road and 33
I see the same thing here, he ignores the residents off Sesame because his property borders Sesame. The other 34
thing I noticed in the conversation is that nobody bothers, nobody has actually witnessed the tower and seemingly the 35
visibility of the tower and how it will look ‘cause she had to explain it again. The other thing is no one has made a 36
visual inspection to see… you were asking where are the tree lines? There is not a whole lot of distance between the 37
tree line going down Sesame and the fencing thats supporting both through the fence, a post, a tree and they are 38
steady falling. There is not a wide area, maybe 150 feet if this tower is going to be placed where I think it will be 39
placed so I behoove you to do an inspection of wherever you make a decision that will impact other people’s lives. 40
Take the time to look at the properties affected so you can make an informed decision as to who it is going to impact 41
and how close it will be and to see an actual that AT&T is going to put up. The young man got up before me 42
mentioned that he can’t get service and he has Verizon service. I have no problem getting Verizon service where I 43
grew up. I have gotten Verizon service; I lived down there when I was a child, moved away, still own property on 44
Sesame. Granted, when my AT&T friends go down there, they can’t get phone service but my Verizon phone picks up 45
just fine. Mother has Time Warner. She has a land line. You might want to consider that because cable service will 46
go back to analog… what we all had before we had digital service. I chose not to get AT&T Sprint because they only 47
offer digital service. Why they can’t consider, if I can get Verizon, does Verizon have more space on one of their 48
towers for AT&T? That way we don’t have to deal with the eyesore. 49
50
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 15 of 82
Samantha Cabe: It is in the record, they did not. There was not the possibility of the co-location. That has already 1
been… 2
3
Diane Riggsbee: You are talking about four? When you said a co-location, it is co-location because … 4
5
Samantha Cabe: They were required to inquire with any other carriers with existing tower locations as to whether or 6
not there was a tower they could locate an antenna on and they had to certify there was not that possibility in their 7
application before they could consider building this tower and there was no comparable. Th ere was no tower in the 8
vicinity that had room for them to place their antenna on. They have already done that as part of the application. 9
10
Diane Riggsbee: So when they actually finished… I am guilty because I am just coming to this meeting today but I 11
don’t know if the span of the cell service is just greater. Compared to other carriers, how many more towers would 12
have to be put up to accommodate AT&T? It bothers me when you totally ignore the main highway that is affected. 13
They just leave it off the map totally. It would actually be coming beside it. If you drew it on this map, it would be 14
coming beside the tower and I behoove you to go see it before you change people’s life and affect people’s life like 15
you are going to change them. I appreciate your time and attention. 16
17
Margot Lester: My name is Margot Carmichael Lester and I have been duly sworn. I grew up on Bowden Road, just 18
on the back side of the property in question. When I was growing up we didn’t have cell phones cause I am kind of old 19
but we did have WUNC ginormous television towers which were visible from everywhere on our farm and so I 20
appreciate the visual and the other impacts that folks are talking about. They are not pretty but when I ask my daddy 21
why we had to see those glowing red lights at night that were kind of scary when I was a kid, he said that was the price 22
we had to pay to get public television. Unfortunately, cell towers, even ones that are faked up to look like trees and 23
they don’t, are the cost of doing business and a cost of living in the modern era to get the service we need. I 24
appreciate those of you who have Verizon. I have AT&T. I live in downtown Carrboro now and if I go downstairs, I 25
can’t talk on my cell phone but what I have come to talk to you about tonight as both a lifelong resident of Orange 26
County and as a Board of Directors member at the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and the Chairman of 27
its Economic Development and Public Policy Committee is a business issue. I have some data here from a Constant 28
Contact survey that was done in May of this year. It talks about how small businesses in particular use mobile 29
technology. I am a small business owner, I have two and many of the people I do business with are based out in the 30
county… some in White Cross and some back in my old neighborhood around Bowden Road and they are building 31
their businesses and maintaining their businesses using mobile technology. Many of them are having trouble but I’ll 32
tell you what the data shows so we don’t step into the hearsay point of view. According to the survey which is of 1,300 33
small business owners, it is the United States. I’m sorry we haven’t done one locally so I could give you more localized 34
data. They show that not only are small businesses using mobile platforms to advertise and to do email marketing but 35
18% of them are using mobile devices for payment. They are swiping those cards. Another set of them, 71% are 36
using it to do billing, to schedule appointments. So people are running their businesses with devices like these, off 37
their table computers and off their laptops and they need reliable service. When my husband was thinking of 38
relocating back to North Carolina, the things he said he required were reliable internet, strong cell phone service and 39
climate control and I can deliver on one of the three, the air conditioner which is anecdotal but I want us to think about 40
the impact as we try to build the stronger local economy, small business people who are running dairy farms and 41
contracting businesses and all kinds of things. We need the ability to have reliable service and I know it is not always 42
pretty to look at infrastructure but it is absolutely necessary and I ask you tonight to please approve this. I would like to 43
say if we can do anything to make it less of a visual impact on the neighbors, that is always a plus but the fact is that 44
we need this infrastructure to serve existing residents, business owners and folks who are trying to do their homework 45
at home or get a reliable service call out during an emergency so I ask you to please vote to approve this tower 46
tonight. 47
48
James DeGraffenreid, Jr.: I have been sworn. The question I have to you and AT&T and the Board is they are 49
showing the access to the tower off Sesame Road and I was wondering why that access. Couldn’t they have a 50
driveway going down to their house and the tower is left of the driveway and my question is why that access road 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 16 of 82
could not have been off the driveway. I was born and raised out there in that area and another question, I don’t still 1
live out there but my dad does but most of the time around these towers, they have these great big generators. When 2
the power goes out the generator kicks on and I am concerned about the noise. How big are the generators and how 3
much noise will be coming from it? 4
5
Karen Kemerait: I would like to respond about the access road. Sesame Road is a DOT maintained road with a 60 6
foot right-of-way and one of the ordinance requirements states that to the 60 foot wide right-of-way and one of the 7
ordinance requirements states that public roads are to be utilized to the maximum extent possible. It is very important 8
to know there will be very minimal traffic generated by this tower site. Once the tower is constructed, which I 9
mentioned last month, which will be about a four week time period then the tower use will be low impact use and 10
generates approximately two to four vehicle trips per month so it is much less minimal traffic type usage, type of use, 11
than even residential use of the area so very little traffic will be generated. As far as the generator, Mr. Harvey, can 12
you answer? 13
14
Liz Hill: I am with American Tower Corporation and I have been duly sworn. The generator at the site will be 218 feet 15
from the nearest property line surrounded by trees. We complied with whatever noise ordinance the county has. I 16
would like to point out that it only kicks on when the power goes out and the cable phone goes out and when other 17
forms of communication go out when you need your phone. The purpose of the generator is backup communications 18
when the primary power bridge fails. 19
20
Larry Wright: Doesn’t it go on to regenerate the battery? 21
22
Liz Hill: Correct. 23
24
Larry Wright: It is an on-demand generator? 25
26
Liz Hill: Correct. 27
28
Larry Wright: It will probably go on once a week for a few minutes. 29
30
Liz Hill: It will go on for testing once a month for a short period of time to make sure it is operating correctly, otherwise 31
it will not be running in any longer period of time unless it is needed unless the power is out. 32
33
Samantha Cabe: Is there a regulation of the testing time? 34
35
Liz Hill: I think we can schedule it for during business hours. I don’t know if your ordinance requires that but we can 36
certainly schedule it. 37
38
Samantha Cabe: Ms. Hill mentioned that the generator would be located 219 feet from the closest property line. That 39
is the Yow’s property line. The generator will be 375 feet from Sesame Road. 40
41
Linda Ward: I am the owner of 801 Sesame Street Road and I am here because I am very concerned just as the 42
realtor said about those people who are afraid of the cell towers, I am one of them. Very much afraid and very much 43
concerned for my community and we were just talking about the generators that are located at the base of the cell 44
towers and these generators must be maintained at a steady temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature 45
requirement is often compromised by poor maintenance and insufficient power due to power outages. Improperly 46
maintained generators have been known to break down and leak fluid into the ground thereby polluting an 47
underground water supply. All of Sesame Road people are on well pumps and I am really concerned about these 48
things breaking down or the maintenance can’t get there on its monthly schedule or nobody even knew it was broken 49
but we, in our community, would be the first one to feel the effects of it and if it is seeping into the ground and the 50
water supply, how far will it go before it reaches University Lake. I think the risk is very great. The potential of trying to 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 17 of 82
clean up your water supply is like that oil deal we had a few summers ago trying to clean the water out of that so I am 1
very concerned about that. Also, the cell towers, I am concerned about the safety of our young children, our senior 2
citizens, the residents that live at the base of these cell towers and how it could affect us. I heard the term about radio 3
frequency radiation emitting from there and I am really concerned about it. I don’t know much about it and the little bit I 4
can read from the short time I got that letter to come to this meeting, I am thinking about a microwave and it just slowly 5
cooks your brain or whatever. The buffer… you said there was water buffer of 150 feet where this tower will be 6
constructed but the electromagnetic radiation policy institute says that it should be constructed within 1,500 feet. This 7
is an international recognized precautionary standard. I feel like it is too close to the neighbors who are right there at 8
the base. 9
10
Samantha Cabe: 1,000 and something feet from what? 11
12
Linda Ward: From your neighbors. 13
14
Samantha Cabe: Could you say that statistic again, one more time. I was confused, you said it should be located 15
1,000 and some feet but you didn’t say from what. 16
17
Linda Ward: I am referring to this part where you say you have a water buffer of 150 feet; they say we have a water 18
buffer of 150. I am also saying that the Electromagnetic Radiation Policy Institute says that international precautionary 19
standard should be 1,500 feet. 20
21
Samantha Cabe: From what? 22
23
Linda Ward: What is this from? 24
25
Samantha Cabe: That is the stream buffer that you can’t disturb the land. 26
27
Linda Ward: But it says it is 150 feet buffer from what? 28
29
Samantha Cabe: That is the stream buffer; you can’t disturb the land within. 30
31
Linda Ward: Our property is much closer. Our property is closer, you have a 150 feet buffer here and then you have 32
our property on the other side which is not 1,500 feet. It is too close. We don’t have enough distance between our 33
houses and that cell tower. 34
35
LaShaun Ward: My name is LaShaun Ward, I know my name is next and I was sworn in. I grew up out there like Mr. 36
DeGraffenreid and so the major concern is health. I love technology. I am a retired teacher and was in the military but 37
the major concern must still be for health and that is what she is addressing. Everybody out there is on well water and 38
what would happen if radiation gets into some of those wells that are about 72 feet. I know those wells do run into 39
University Lake. That is the major concern is health. Technology is great, I love it and when it works it is super. 40
41
Linda Ward: We were talking about how many cell towers were out there and how many exist so I went on the website 42
www.antennasearch.com and I typed in 1426 Old Greensboro Road to see what it would say. It said there are already 43
an existing 22 towers found within a four mile radius and south of Old Greensboro Road and it says that eight are 44
registered and 14 are not registered. We have towers that are not registered so who knows about them but the 45
system did give a list of those towers and they are .28 of a mile of 1426 Old Greensboro Road and .32 of a mile of Old 46
Greensboro and then there is American Towers but there are other towers too. It gave a whole list of those. I am 47
hoping we can research this further and find out the affects and get a bonefied study of what will happen to us as 48
neighbors in that community. Also, you had mentioned that we need the cell phones and we need internet and the 49
other devices, cable, internet, cell phones and all this and we are saying is this really a need. Well we do have a need 50
for information. We have a need for it but when I was in school financing student loans and when the students came 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 18 of 82
in and said that it is an emergency I need to have my cell phone paid. We never gave them emergency for cell phone, 1
no emergency loan for cable TV, nor did we give them one for internet. It was always the electric bill to keep warm or 2
water or your rent being paid so I am saying that we really need to look at this situation to see how close. These 3
maps, they are taken, looks like space here because they are so wide and it makes it seems like the area is so large, 4
the area is not that big. 5
6
Michael Harvey: Mr. Ward, did you have anything else to add? 7
8
LaShaun Ward: I will support the opinion of the first two speakers. 9
10
Michael Harvey: I wanted to make sure you had your opportunity. 11
12
LaShaun Ward: Yes, thank you. 13
14
Bryan Lanier: I have been sworn. I am a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina and I am here to answer 15
any questions that anyone may have regarding the structural integrity of the tower. 16
17
David Blankfard: How difficult would it be to, after this tower is put in, to retrofit… to make this tower taller? 18
19
Bryan Lanier: Some are more difficult foundations to try to strengthen but in general foundations are challenging but it 20
can be done. Depending on how much you want to invest in it especially considering how tall you want to make the 21
tower. Also be a function of, AT&T goes on this tower, and they are co-located, now there are no other carriers. We 22
will say Verizon wants a height of 225 feet, more than likely the foundation would have more than adequate capacity 23
and the second carrier is going to be higher, there is still enough strength left in reserve to support that. It is quite 24
unlikely. Once this carrier goes in, it will never have to be strengthened again. 25
26
Linda Ward: How many cell towers have fallen that has been built in the 10 years? 27
28
Samantha Cabe: Let’s not have a back and forth. 29
30
Larry Wright: I would like for you to offer testimony and speak to the board. Mr. Dixon, did you want to ask any 31
questions? 32
33
Gary Dixon: How do they address the bad weather and the wind? How do they determine if ice lands on that tower 34
and freezes and it starts coming off? Is wind going to take that stuff and blow it through my window? Is that 35
something pertinent to him? 36
37
Larry Wright: Sir, would you address the Board and respond to this please? 38
39
Bryan Lanier: With respect to wind and ice, this is a design consideration as part of the tower, something part of the 40
building standard… technically buildings have to be designed with this although snow is something more concerned 41
about. As far as ice falling, the expectation is usually low. The ice will fall easily with the height of the tower if not a 42
much shorter distance. Specifically, when you get ice accumulation on a tower, it will be in a low wind area like if you 43
are in a low wind time. If you have a lot of wind blowing, you will not get a significant amount of ice accumulation 44
because the wind will blow the water off. Is it basically freezing rain so you would expect when the ice comes off, it will 45
be low wind and fall straight to the ground. 46
47
Gary Dixon: Will it land on the cattle and the farm? 48
49
Larry Wright: Mr. Harvey? 50
51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 19 of 82
Michael Harvey: The next person signed up is Libby Hough. 1
2
Libby Hough: I have been sworn in. As a rural resident living in the rural buffer, not down in White Cross but up on 3
Bingham Township. We have coupled together our phone service and internet service because AT&T hasn’t worked 4
where we are so we are AT&T regular phone and internet and Verizon cell phone. The way I learned that AT&T didn’t 5
work was about 10 years ago during the 2002 ice storm. We lost power for seven days while my husband was in 6
sunny California I was at home with two small children, no power, no toilets and no water and no phone except for 7
8:00 in the evening I could stand on my tiptoes in one spot in my house. That was a safety consideration for us and 8
then I switched our cell phone coverage. Fast forward to about a month ago, I have an older daughter who has a life 9
threatening heart condition and I received a telephone call while away from the house that she was again in the 10
emergency room this time in the mountains of North Carolina after a seizure. I rushed home, tried to use my cell 11
phone because I don’t pay for my long distance on my land line. I pay for that on my cell phone. The coverage was 12
spotty at best. I was not able to be in communication with the emergency room when my daughter was there. Then I 13
went to the business line that I pay for with AT&T so we have three phone services and was able to call out long 14
distance that way fortunately but it underscored my lack of ability to communicate with others in times of need. I am 15
also a small business owner and started my business at my home so I could be at home with my children as needed. 16
Our internet service goes down quite a bit. When that happens I have to pack up and go from my home in rural 17
Orange County to Weaver Street or wherever and try to run my business virtually from those locations. Sometimes 18
our phone service has gone down for two weeks at a time. We do not have a backup internet service. I have to leave 19
the house in order to conduct my business. That has been remedied by the fact that I have office space in 20
Hillsborough but as a small business owner, the overhead is quite significant. I have looked at every which way to cut 21
our home expenses, our phones, and I can’t. I have a child with a health condition, even though she is 21 years old, 22
she is still my child and I still get calls from the emergency room so for safety reason, for small business infrastructure, 23
for supporting economic development in the community I support this application. I also, as a person on a well water 24
system, I understand concerns about ground water contamination so if there are ways that the residents can be 25
assured that all kinds of safety precautions are taken to keep their water safe, I would appreciate that too. Thank you. 26
27
Michael Harvey: Next is Ms. Beverly Roberson. 28
29
Larry Wright: Ms. Robinson. She left. 30
31
Laura Lloyd: I have been duly sworn in. I live off Greensboro Road, less than a mile from where the tower will be. I 32
have Verizon and I have fine service most of the time. I have a friend on Carl Durham Road who runs her business 33
from her house and her office in town. She has all AT&T and she gets no service on Carl Durham Road which is a 34
little further out from me. About a month ago, she had to come to my house to call 911 when she came home and 35
found her home had been robbed so she could not even call 911 from there. When the last woman was talking about 36
her daughter, my son is a mailman for a post office out of Timberlyne and has all White Cross; he has Verizon, like I 37
do. He talks to me numerous times during the day and even with that, he is in very spotty areas. I know exactly where 38
he is all the time. He also has a severe illness and is very lucky to be able to work the job he does so he needs to be 39
able to call 911 too even though he is working out there but there are times in the heat and dust he has trouble 40
breathing and I’m afraid he won’t be able to call 911. The other issue is the new fire department on Neville Road 41
which is pretty directly across from the Yow’s property. Mrs. Yow was a Neville so it is Neville Road so what will 42
happen with that 911 and anybody who has AT&T has a terrible time out there. I did see the balloon test. I did see 43
the signs and of course I was very curious about it. I know the Yow’s. I had to go in town on Old Greensboro Road; I 44
know where the Yow’s live. I had to totally turn my head away from looking at the road to be able to see that balloon. 45
When you came out of town, you couldn’t see it at all. I didn’t go down Sesame Road that day. I know they will be 46
able to see it, I know there is a large tree buffer and I’m sure it is… everybody wants it, they want the internet 47
connection but they don’t want it in their back yard but I am totally in favor of this cell tower being built and we need 48
more of them because this part of Orange County has terrible cell service. Thank you. 49
50
Michael Harvey: Last on my list is Maria Patino. 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 20 of 82
1
Gary Dixon: She speaks Spanish. Maria simply wanted to say that she has AT&T service, she lives on Sesame Road 2
and she is on our memorandum. She is one of our petitioners that live in the community off Sesame. She does have 3
five lines of AT&T service and she has fine signal there. 4
5
Maria Patino: I have five lines from AT&T… I-phone 4 and I-phone 5. I have had it maybe seven years. 6
7
Michael Harvey: That concludes the list of individuals that have signed up. 8
9
Liz Hill: I am Liz Hill with American Tower. There were concerns raised about the environmental safety of the 10
generator. The generator will be owned by American Tower. It is a shared generator so AT&T will be on it and 11
someone else can share it as well. We will comply with whatever the regulations are. Local regulations, state 12
regulations, we will comply. These are monitored 24 hours a day remotely. Actually our national network operating 13
center is located in Cary so that is where it will be located in addition to the regular visits. Every time our site 14
supervisors go to a site for whatever reason, they check everything at the site and one of those things will be the 15
generator because it is an American Tower owned asset. Whatever the environmental regulations are, we will comply 16
with them. We own a couple thousand of these across the country and have not had any issues with leakage but 17
whatever the environmental regulations, we will comply. 18
19
Larry Wright: In the event of a power failure, can you remotely monitor? 20
21
Liz Hill: Yes. 22
23
Larry Wright: What agents are in there that would be a potential hazard to the environment? 24
25
Liz Hill: They are diesel generators so they are your standard generators but unlike the ones I think of as a generator 26
where you have the round tank. These are self-contained so it is rectangular. It has the diesel and the generator in 27
one unit so it is a little more compact. Diesel is the only thing I could think of that would have a leakage and diesel 28
generators have been deployed for years. 29
30
Larry Wright: Is it oil? 31
32
Liz Hill: It is just diesel fuel. That is all it is. Other than that, it is a standard generator. It is a Generac generator. A 33
standard generator with diesel fuel that a lot of people are installing at their homes simply a little larger to 34
accommodate commercial carriers. 35
36
Larry Wright: Do you have any other rebuttals. 37
38
Karen Kemerait: No. I would like a few minutes to sum up the evidence. AT&T had been approached by residents, 39
businesses, and the Chamber of Commerce asking for better coverage in the area and AT&T has agreed to provide a 40
significant investment in Orange County and the efforts they are making will lead to a better quality of life, a better 41
general well-being and also better safety for the residents and also AT&T and American Towers assistance with 42
economic development efforts within Orange County. The propagation maps shows the coverage will be greatly 43
improved based upon this one tower location site and then also, as I have shown with the most recent propagation 44
maps, AT&T is intending to provide significantly better coverage within Orange County. Regarding the parcel that has 45
been selected, Mr. & Mrs. Yow’s property, which are here tonight, it is an excellent parcel for the telecommunications 46
tower. It will provide coverage where coverage is needed along Old Greensboro and Jones Ferry Roads and also it is 47
a large 28 acre piece of property and I think it is unusual to find such a large site for telecommunications towers in 48
today’s time. The site is used for cattle farming. Mr. & Mrs. Yow have agreed to the conservation easement to ensure 49
the vast majority of trees will be preserved. What we have not focused on tonight because I believe that evidence is 50
undisputed is that we have met all the specific and technical requirements of the ordinance. We have also talked in a 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 21 of 82
little more detail and also during the hearing last month about the general standards for special use permit 1
applications. We have shown in our application and I don’t believe there has been any competent material or 2
substantial evidence to the contrary about any of these general standards for special use permits. First, we have 3
shown the tower will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare. We have shown that the 4
emissions for the antennas will comply with all federal standards and guidelines. We have shown that the tower will 5
allow 911 service to be available for AT&T customers during times of emergency and also that the county has the 6
ability to place its own emergency equipment on the tower as well. The service will, as the witnesses from the 7
chamber and the public witnesses, have talked about how the service will lead to and improve quality of life from many 8
aspects and also will improve economic development for the county. We have also shown that the second standard 9
has been met with the monopole tower to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The monopole tower 10
will not be a nuisance. There will be no noise, no glare and the tower will not be lit because it is not required to be lit 11
by the FAA. There will be little or minimal traffic that will be generated once the tower has been constructed. As I 12
mentioned, there will be two to four vehicle trips per month and most significantly we provided a property impact 13
analysis from David Smith who testified at the hearing a month ago. He is a North Carolina certified real estate 14
appraiser. His report is supported by factual analysis and data and evidence. His report concludes that the proposed 15
tower will maintain and enhance the value of contiguous property. We have also shown in our application materials 16
that the tower will be in harmony with the area in which is to be located. Telecommunications towers are permitted as 17
special uses on property that has been zoned rural buffer which is the zoning classification of Mr. & Mrs. Yow’s 18
property and once a use is permitted as a special use in particular zoning classification, it is considered evidence that it 19
will be in harmony with the area in which it will be located. We have also mentioned it will not be a nuisance and not 20
be lit with no noise or glare and little traffic. Mr. Smith also provided testimony at the hearing last month which he 21
provided his conclusion as well that the tower will be harmony with the area in which is proposed to be located. I also 22
wanted to mention that this particular application has generated quite a bit of interest among businesses and from the 23
Chamber of Commerce because there is insufficient coverage in the county and coverage is not being not just asked 24
for but demanded of the different carriers. Last month, Aaron Nelson from the Chamber of Commerce talked about 25
how important the telecommunications coverage is in the county and in this area in particular for economic 26
development and he urged the board to approve the application. Kristen Smith, who is the Vice-President of Advocacy 27
and Engagement, also testified last month and she is a neighbor along Old Greensboro Road and lives about a mile 28
from the tower site. She testified from a personal perspective for the need of a better telecommunications area along 29
Old Greensboro Road. Then Desiree Goldman testified, she is with the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors, 30
talked about safety concerns of a realtor who goes into homes with clients and how concerned she is when there is not 31
telecommunications service for her own personal safety. She also talked about how critically important it is for home 32
buyers that there be telecommunications in the home they are considering purchasing and she also talked about when 33
some of the home buyers learned there is not telecommunications coverage that they often times lose interest in 34
purchasing the house. She also talked about, in Orange County, she believes it a lifestyle that the county should 35
continue to encourage where the county should allow the infrastructure to be available such that people can have less 36
of a footprint that they can work from home and spend less time in their vehicles if they are able to do so. Then 37
Jeremy Browner also talked about the importance of telecommunications coverage especially from his perspective in 38
the rural areas and then again tonight we have had three additional witnesses, Margot Lester, who spoke this evening 39
and she stated she used to live off Old Greensboro Road. One of her comments was that anything we can do to make 40
the 199 foot monopole less of a visible impact would be appreciated and I wanted to point out what we have already 41
agreed to do which is the conservation easement that we have talked about. The ordinance requires the antennas be 42
flushed mounted to the tower and that is something we will be doing as well. Then Art Menius spoke as well and he 43
talked about how important it is for telecommunications coverage for small businesses to thrive and grow and then 44
Libby Hough who just spoke. I did want to address some of the concerns raised by the neighbors. There was 45
discussion about impact of property values from Mr. Lenchek and Ms. Figueror however; those two witnesses provided 46
no data, had no evidence, they are not appraisers and they did not provide an appraisal report and the information 47
they provided would be, what the courts would be, generalized concerns that there would be no supporting facts for 48
data and would not be considered competent material evidence. The North Carolina case law states that it is clear 49
that opinions and conclusions about impact of property values that are not supported by factual data or background 50
are considered to be incompetent and insufficient evidence that cannot be relied upon. Also, I talked about the balloon 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 22 of 82
test that it was a reliable report. As far as the safety of the tower, we are required to provide a fall zone for the 199 1
foot tower which is 110% of the tower and the fall zone is 219 feet so no structures or property lines can be located 2
within 219 feet of the tower and that has been complied with. In addition, Sesame Road with the neighborhood 3
directly to the east of Sesame Road is located 375 feet away from the tower. 4
5
Samantha Cabe: On the notes on your map submitted as Applicant’s Exhibit 2 and note 5 indicates that the tower is 6
located such that there are none existing within 500 feet of the tower center? 7
8
Karen Kemerait: I assume that it is accurate. I mean 375 feet from Sesame Road is the location of the Road. 9
10
Samantha Cabe: From the centerline of Sesame Road? 11
12
Karen Kemerait: Yes. I did want to mention about the report provided by the New York attorney and I wanted to 13
mention that the law that was presented in that report is based on Circuit Federal Law and what has been discussed, 14
to some extent, was discussion about how an applicant must find the least intrusive means to fill a gap in coverage. 15
That is not the law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina would be if we were in Federal Court we would be the 16
fourth circuit. The Fourth Circuit has a case, T-Mobile versus Fairfax Board which was decided in 2012, specifically 17
rejected that the least intrusive means test and stated that is not the law of the Fourth Circuit. Even if it were the law, 18
the Orange County UDO essentially has a standard similar to that. It requires an applicant to evaluate less intrusive 19
options for any tower placement and this is according to Section 5.10.8.b.4.b and the hierarchy of sites is number one 20
to consider locating the antennas on an existing county owned facility in which the height will not have to be increased. 21
The second criteria are to consider an existing facility such as an existing tower without increasing the height. The 22
third is on county properties and the fourth is on properties zoned for commercial or industrial use and American Tower 23
and AT&T considered each of those options and as noted in the application none of those options were available that 24
is the reason they have come forward with an application to lease property from Mr. & Mrs. Yow. We are asking that 25
the application be approved because we have met all the technical requirements for telecommunications towers and 26
all the general standards for special use. Thank you. 27
28
Larry Wright: Mr. Dixon, do you have a summary statement? 29
30
Gary Dixon: I would like to go back to the map and reiterate that each one of the plots or squares represents a family 31
with real people and real children. Thirty females constitute well over 100 people that will be greatly impacted by 32
something that is the maximum height. They have not looked for anything less intrusive. I understand there are no 33
other structures that will support a 20 story tall tower. They have to have this much space for something that big that 34
towers over everything. Leaving those trees that are half the height of a 20 story tower will not hide this tower. They 35
will not camouflage this at all. The second picture is nearly twice as tall as the existing trees. I walked it off this 36
morning and from the center of Sesame Road, it is approximately 250 feet from the front yard of the closest house. 37
There is very little room if anything at all goes wrong. I would also like you to consider how much traffic it will create 38
with the trucks, the school buses on an 18 foot wide road. It will be very dangerous. At the speed limit of 25. This 39
road has one way in and one way out. Where will they turn around at? These are real people with families. 40
41
Michael Harvey: In your application packet, tab 6, the site plan, sheet 5 provides you with the location of the proposed 42
tower, it provides documentation that the tower is well within the required fall zone and then scaling out the boundary 43
from the identified fall zone is approximately another 190 feet so it is 218 feet plus another 190 feet is where the tower 44
is setback from Sesame Road. The applicant has provided, in attachment 3 of this packet, the detailed narrative 45
referring to all the various attachments outlining how they comply with the code. On page 100, we have provided what 46
we believe are some linkages to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan that demonstrate compliance with 47
various goals and policies as adopted by County Commissioners. Staff typically provides you with the 48
recommendations on specific findings that are contained within the Unified Development Ordinance. Specifically the 49
applicant has submitted the completed application form, the necessary number of documents, has paid the required 50
application fee and beginning on page 132 we have found the applicant has complied with Sections 2.2 and 2.73 51
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 23 of 82
concerning the submittal of the application as well as all the required attachments. That goes on to page 136 and then 1
we provided documentation dealing with whether or not the applicant has complied with Section 2.75 which deals with 2
notification requirements. We have provided you the linkages not only in the applicant’s document but as well as 3
providing you documentation in our own abstract signifying that all notification requirements were adhered to as 4
described in the UDO and state law. That takes us to page 138 complying with the specifics development standards. 5
You will note an affirmative finding by staff. You will also note there are various locations where we state the 6
provisions are not applicable. For example, there is a requirement that the applicant provide an environmental 7
statement if they are required to by code. This project is not required to provide one as it does not meet the criteria to 8
submit an environmental statement and we have indicated that in the script for your review. We have found they have 9
complied with the necessary documentation with respect to the technical detail on the erection of the tower. As Ms. 10
Kemerait pointed out, they have the detailed narrative as well as attachments showing the search ring utilized to find 11
the proposed site and the propagation studies indicating there were no towers as required by the code for them to co-12
locate onto an existing tower with this antenna. That takes us to the conclusion of this script on page 183. This is 13
where the board has to base their decisions based on the testimony evidence entered into the record. These are the 14
three general findings in Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). Specifically that the use will maintain or promote the public health, 15
safety and general welfare if located where proposed. I am not reading verbatim. Secondly, that the use will maintain 16
or enhance the value of contiguous property and finally, location and character of the use if developed according to the 17
planned submittal will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and the use is in compliance with the physical 18
development of the county’s UDO and Comprehensive Plan. We have provided you with a reminder of what is in the 19
record with respect to testimony that has already been presented. If you see fit to grant this application, you will see 20
on page 187 and 188, we have recommended 19 conditions which the applicant has agreed to. I would further 21
stipulate that if this board sees fit, you need to add a 20th condition indicating that conservation easement(s) will be 22
executed as proposed by the applicant to address board’s concerns over the removal of foliage from the property. 23
You will need to add that it was not an original condition. I will remind the board in Attachment 2 of the packet, you 24
have correspondence from our county telecommunications consultant recommending approval of the tower. You have 25
correspondence from Orange County Environmental Health, the fire marshal’s office and other county agencies 26
indicating their support for the tower application indicating they do not believe there are issues with respect to either 27
they being able to provide service to the tower from a public safety standpoint or from the tower being erected on the 28
parcel of property. I will answer any specific questions. I will remind you that once you close the public hearing, you 29
cannot ask questions of the staff, applicant or anyone in the audience. Just to make sure no one has questions for Mr. 30
Monroe, he has to leave. 31
32
Larry Wright: Anyone have any questions for Mr. Monroe. No. At this point we will close the public hearing. Are 33
there any general comments from the board members before we start? I would like to address the application 34
components. I would like to ask for a motion and before there is a second, I would like to give ample time for any 35
discussion on the motion. Do I have a motion on the application components? We are all voting members here. 36
37
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 24 of 82
1
2
3 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY 5
AT AND T / AMERICAN TOWER 6
REQUESTING A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL 7
FOR A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 8
1426 OLD GREENSBORO ROAD – PIN 9768-22-3878 9
10
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance 11
(UDO), a Class B Special Use Permit is required for the erection of a telecommunication tower, over 75 feet but 12
under 200 feet in height, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. Such permits shall comply 13
with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.10.8 of the UDO. 14
15 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: 16
17
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed 18
and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 19
20
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in 21
which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and 22
23
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony 24
with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical 25
development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion 26
thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; 27
28 In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific 29
standards: 30
31
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 32
and 2.7 of the UDO, 33
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of telecommunication tower as set forth in Section 5.10.8 34
(A) through (B) of the UDO, 35
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: 36
a. Sewage disposal facilities, 37
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and 38
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site 39
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). 40
41
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question? The findings have been 42
presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its deliberations. 43 44
Attachment 4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 25 of 82
1
2 SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates 3
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 4 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 26 of 82
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
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 Tower
Engineering Professionals of
Raleigh, 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 12 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
2
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 27 of 82
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
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) 6 and 37 of the
application booklet contains
the 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 37 of the application
booklet contains the required
information, specifically the
tower work shall commence by
September 2013 (if project is
approved and there are no
appeals) and be completed
within approximately 6 weeks.
_x__Yes ____No
2
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 28 of 82
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
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
2
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 29 of 82
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
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 June 10,
2013 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 lest ten
days prior to the date of said
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 (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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 30 of 82
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 31 of 82
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 32 of 82
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 and 30 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 28 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
_x__Yes ____No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 33 of 82
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 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 and 41 of the
application booklet contain
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) 15 and 21 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) 17 and 20 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
_x__Yes ____No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 34 of 82
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 19 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 and 6 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 17 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, 13, 17, and 21 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
_x__Yes ____No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 35 of 82
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, 17, and 21 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, 17, and 21 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, 17 and 21 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 21 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
_x__Yes ____No
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 36 of 82
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 and 21 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 and 22 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
The affidavit was prepared by
Jerry Jones 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 Tab(s) 3 and 13 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
_x__Yes ____No
4
5
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 37 of 82
SECTION 5.8.10 (A) (2) ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – CO LOCATION OF ANTENNAS ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 38 of 82
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, 14, 16, 17, 19, and
20 of the application booklet
contains 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.
There are no County pre-
designated sites in this area
affording a pre-
screened/sanctioned location
for a telecommunication
facility.
The existing OWASA site
(refer to Map in Tab 14) would
not serve this area.
Tab(s) 3 and 6 provides
sufficient information denoting
compliance with subsection
(b).
_x__Yes ____No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 39 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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, 8, 9, 10, 11, and
12 of the application booklet
contains the required
information.
The balloon test was
completed on April 20, 2013 –
7 weeks prior to the June 10,
2013 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 April 20, 2013.
Notices of the balloon test
were sent to property owners
within 1000 feet, of the subject
property, via certified mail on
April 3, 2013, 17 days prior to
the scheduled balloon test.
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.
_x__Yes ____No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 40 of 82
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.
Signs were posted on the
property, as well as off-site
directional signs, on March 22,
2013.
Planning staff was informed of
the test as required by Section
5.8.10 (B) (2) (e) as detailed
herein.
2
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 41 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
The project will involve a
stream crossing (i.e. driveway)
consistent with the provisions
of Section 6.13 of the UDO.
_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 17 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 42 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 6of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
Sheet L-1 of the site plan
contained in Tab 6 contains
the required landscape and
tree preservation plan.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 43 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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, 15, 16, and 22, of
the application booklet
contains the required
information.
Tab 22 contains an affidavit
indicating there are no existing
towers, buildings, or other
useable structures within a 2
mile radius in which antennas
could be attached.
Tab 16 contains a
memorandum from BlueWave
Development reviewing search
criteria for a property to
support the proposed 199 foot
tall tower.
Tab 15 contains a search ring
map.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 44 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 45 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 46 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 33 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 32 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 12 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
3
4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 47 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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, 8, 9, 10, 11 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 48 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 and 21 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 49 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 30 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
Tab 30 contains a statement
authored by Margaret
Robinson of American Tower
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 50 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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(s) 3 and 14 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 51 of 82
1
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 2
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(s) 3 and 14 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 ‘County’ owned
properties where a tower could
be located.
There are no commercially
and/or industrially zoned
properties in the area where a
tower could be located.
There are no properties zoned
AR in the general vicinity of
this property where a tower
can be placed to address
service issues.
This property is zoned for
residential use.
_x__Yes ___No
4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 52 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 53 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 54 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 55 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 56 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 with 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
the base of the tower will be
460 feet from the nearest
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 57 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 58 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
Sheet L-1 of the site plan
contained in Tab 6 contains
sufficient detail denoting
compliance.
There will be a Type C Land
Use Buffer installed on the
property.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 59 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 60 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 C-10 of the site plan
contained in Tab 6 contains
the required information on
proposed fences and walls.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 61 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 31 of the
application booklet contains
the required information.
Tab 31 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 62 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 63 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 facie 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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 64 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 65 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 66 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 67 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
Sheet C-11 of the site plan
contained within Tab 6
provides the signage details
for the project, demonstrating
compliance with this provision.
_x__Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 68 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
Sheet C-11 of the site plan
contained within Tab 6
provides the signage details
for the project, demonstrating
compliance with this provision.
_x__Yes ___No
3
4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 69 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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.
Sheet C-11 of the site plan
contained within Tab 6
provides the signage details
for the project, demonstrating
compliance with this provision.
_x__Yes ___No
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 70 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 71 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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
3
4
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 72 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 73 of 82
SECTION 5.10.8 (B) – GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS – CONTINUED ("Yes" 1
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
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 74 of 82
SECTION 5.3.2 (B) – SPECIFIC STANDARDS – SPECIAL USE PERMITS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 1
non-compliance) 2
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
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 75 of 82
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 White Cross Volunteer
Fire Department, rescue
service by the Orange County
Emergency Management, and
police protection by the
Orange County Sheriff’s
Department.
Attachment 2 of the staff
prepared abstract 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 Sesame Road
_x__Yes ____No
2
3
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to adopt the recommended findings of the planning staff as set forth and as 4
summarized by Mr. Harvey and set forth on pages 132 through 182. I make a motion that we adopt the planning staff 5
recommended findings as to the technical components of the application as summarized by Mr. Harvey as findings of 6
this board from pages 131 through 182. Seconded by Mark Micol. 7
VOTE: Unanimous 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 76 of 82
SECTION 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses – General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
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 39 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
2
3
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 77 of 82
1
Ordinance Requirements
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
BOA
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
Continued
• Tab(s) 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 28, and 30 of
the application booklet
contain evidence
demonstrating the need
for the tower, provisions
for guaranteeing the
public’s safety and
general welfare.
2
Larry Wright: Let’s move on to the special uses and the general standards and we are starting on page 183. 3
4
MOTION made by Mark Micol to find in favor of the finding that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety 5
and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted based 6
on the testimony of Aaron Nelson, President of the Chapter in Carrboro Chamber of Commerce that the additional 7
tower will encourage the expansion of affordable high speed internet access in the county and provide equitable 8
access to rural underserved areas. Seconded by David Blankfard. 9
VOTE: Unanimous 10
11
12
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 78 of 82
SECTION 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses – General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 1
2
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 39 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
3
Larry Wright: What is the board’s pleasure? 4
5
MOTION made by David Blankfard to find in favor that the use will maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous 6
proprieties based on findings of the Impact Analysis prepared by David A. Smith, MAISRA (appraiser). 7
8
Mark Micol added that the use is necessary and in the public’s best interest with regard to enhanced emergency 9
communications with cell and internet services. 10
11
Samantha Cabe added that the basis for such finding that the record is absent of any component evidence that 12
sufficiently rebuts Mr. Smith’s report as to any negative impact on the values of the contiguous properties. 13
14
Motion Seconded by Mark Micol. 15
16
Samantha Cabe: I want to make a comment about this particular area because I know that I have heard and I can 17
appreciate because I grew up in a rural area and I appreciate all of your concerns about well water and how things 18
look and the aesthetics in the area and I can’t help but notice that in American Tower’s photograph that Mr. Dixon 19
attached as photograph 2 that what sticks out to me as more of an impact of the visual of this area are the telephone 20
lines, the power lines that we are all used to that if we were back in the 1950s or 1940s those would be sore thumbs 21
and the fact that we now have powers that are not connected by lines is just more of the same but different and I think 22
it is an unfortunate growing pain but we are all going to be having these in our backyards just as we all have these 23
power poles with lines that go across the road in every neighborhood, in every state, in every county of this country 24
and I want to make that observation on the record. 25 26
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 79 of 82
MOTION reiterated by David Blankfard to find in favor that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous 1
properties based on the findings of the impact analysis prepared by David A. Smith, MAISRA, a certified appraiser. 2
3
Mark Micol amended that the use is necessary and in the public’s best interest in regards to enhanced emergency 4
communications and uninterrupted cell and/or internet service. 5
6
Samantha Cabe added that part of the basis for that finding also is that the record is void of any competent evidence 7
that rebuts Mr. Smith’s professional opinion that the value of the contiguous property will not negatively be affected. 8
VOTE: Unanimous 9
10
11
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 39 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
12
Larry Wright: We are on page 186 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) Do I hear a motion? 13
14
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe to find in the affirmative that the location and character of the use if developed 15
according to the plans submitted will be in harmony in the area which it is to be located and the use is in compliance 16
with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive 17
Plan by the Board of the County Commissioners and the basis for such finding would be the documents contained in 18
tab 3 of the application booklet. Also, the documents behind tab 39 of the application booklet which includes the 19
Impact Analysis complete by David Smith, our certified appraiser or the certified appraiser who testified in this case 20
and the documents behind tab 6 of the application booklet which contains the site plan denoting the project’s 21
compliance with the UDO. Seconded by Mark Micol. 22
VOTE: Unanimous 23
24
25
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 80 of 82
1
1. The height of the tower shall not exceed a height of 199 feet above pre-construction grade as detailed 2
within the approved application package as reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment at their 3
June 10, 2013 meeting. 4
2. Existing vegetation, as detailed on the approved site plan reviewed and acted upon by the Board of 5
Adjustment at their June 10, 2013 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 local 8
requirements, including the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission regarding 9
emission of electromagnetic radiation. Within 30 days of installation of equipment on the tower, and 10
within 30 days of the installation of any additional equipment in the future, the tower owner shall provide 11
documentation of emission levels in relation to FCC standards to the County for review. In addition, the 12
tower owner must provide documentation of emission levels within five working days if so requested by 13
Orange County. Orange County may make such requests at any time, not to exceed 2 times per year. 14
5. Two ten pound 2-A:20-B:C dry chemical portable fire extinguishers shall be installed at the site at a 15
conspicuous location for use during an emergency event. 16
6. As required within Section 5.10.8 (A) (1) (g) of the UDO, the applicant shall be required to provide a final 17
copy of the installed foundation design including a geotechnical sub-surface soils investigation, 18
evaluation report, and foundation recommendation for the proposed wireless support structure prior to 19
the commencement of land disturbing activities associated with the construction of the 20
telecommunication facilities. 21
7. The applicant shall obtain a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation approving the 22
driveway access for the project. 23
8. The applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of and 24
land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the telecommunication facilities including, but 25
not limited to: Building Permit, Erosion Control/Stormwater Management Permit, Zoning Compliance 26
Permit. 27
9. Proposed stream crossing shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Planning Department 28
and Erosion Control prior to the initiation of land disturbing activity. 29
10. Any proposed co-location of antenna on this tower shall be reviewed, acted upon, and installed in 30
accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 31
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, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the Count y.
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 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 81 of 82
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 Attorney’s 3
office for review and approval guaranteeing the removal of the tower in the event it is abandoned or 4
unused for a period of 12 months. A cost estimate shall be provided by a qualified contractor. The 5
amount of the security shall be 110 percent of the estimate. This must be completed before building 6
permits are issued. 7
13. Telecommunication tower owners shall submit a report to the County Inspections Division certifying 8
structural and electrical integrity upon completion of the initial construction and at intervals as specified 9
within the UDO. 10
14. Inspection records shall be kept by the tower owner and made available upon request to the County 11
Inspections Division during regular business hours. Inspections shall be performed as specified within the 12
UDO. 13
15. In those cases where an inspection is required, which is not performed by Orange County Inspections, 14
the applicant is required to notify the Planning Department and any applicable County telecommunication 15
consultant of the inspection and its results. 16
16. Nothing associated with the approval, development or use of the property in support of the proposed 17
telecommunication facilities shall be construed as impacting the use of the property for bona-fide farm 18
purposes. Expansion of farming activities shall not constitute a modification of the special use permit as 19
detailed within the UDO requiring a re-review of the project by the Board of Adjustment. 20
17. The County’s telecommunications consultant shall issue a final Certificate of Completion upon the 21
completion of a final inspection of the constructed telecommunication facilities. Commercial service 22
cannot be provided/initiated until this final Certificate is completed and issued. 23
18. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval if the use 24
has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for 25
extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of Adjustment. 26
19. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall 27
be void in its entirety and of no effect. 28
29
Larry Wright: Now we move to the recommendations with the 20th recommendation which would be the easement. 30
Mr. and Mrs. Yow are willing to provide an easement so that the existing trees on the tower site will be preserved 31
throughout the duration of its use of this telecommunications site. 32
33
MOTION made by Samantha Cabe that the board approve the application for the special use permit with the 19 34
conditions that are proposed on pages 187 through 188 of the abstract with the additional condition “that a 35
conservation easement consistent with the applicant’s Exhibit 2 submitted today be executed and recorded as a 36
condition to the approval of the permit”. David Blankfard seconded. 37
VOTE: Unanimous 38
39
Michael Harvey: Before we adjourn, we have to poll the board members. We have an application that needs to be 40
heard in September. The typical meeting date for this board is the second Monday of each month. That puts it in 41
direct conflict with the Board of County Commissioner’s Public Hearing so we will not be holding the Board of 42
Adjustment meeting that evening. We are asking if you would be available on Tuesday, September 10 for a meeting 43
to hear this application which is an appeal of the decision by the Orange County Planning Department. 44
45
Approved 9/10/2013
OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 82 of 82
Larry Wright: Will this be a very long meeting? 1
2
Michael Harvey: I would love to tell you it is not going to be a long meeting. 3
4
Larry Wright: What is this meeting again? 5
6
Michael Harvey: An appeal of a decision made by the planning department. 7
8 9
AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 10
MOTION made by Karen Barrows to adjourn. David Blankfard seconded. 11
VOTE: Unanimous 12
13
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 pm 14
15