The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 05-24-2004-D.11S5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 24, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. ~-~ SUBJECT• Wireless Element of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT (S): stakeholders Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments MTP text and maps, which includes: / An inventory of existing cell tower sites, / Environmental and Cultural Constraints / Available Sites, and / A timeline of relevant meetings and hearings May 27, 2003 and November 25, 2002 Public Hearing minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, Director, ext 2592 Glenn Bowles, Planner II, ext 2577 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 ® Copies of letters sent to MTP ___ PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the proposed Wireless Element of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP). BACKGROUND: This is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to Article 6,18 and Article 8,8, and specifically Article 6.18.5, entitled "Master Telecommunications Plan", and Article 8.8,17a, entitled "Telecommunications Towers", to allow for the adoption of a "Master Telecommunications Plan" Map ("MTP") that will identify sites within the County where Telecommunication Tower facilities already exist and also pre-identified properties (Pre- identified Properties") whose owners have expressed an interest in locating Telecommunication Towers in the future, subject to all Orange County Zoning Ordinance requirements. Properties identified on the MTP may include those related to fire stations, voluntary agricultural districts, public and private utility authorities, State and County owned properties, privately owned properties, etc, As with any other proposed telecommunications tower facility, an application to site a tower facility on Pre-identified Property on the MTP may be approved only upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit and after meeting all other Orange County Zoning Ordinance requirements. Provided the initial MTP plan is adopted, the County will consider additions or modifications to the MTP annually at the February Public Hearing each year. Applications to add to, withdraw 136 from or otherwise modify the MTP shall be filed with the Zoning Officer prior to December 15tH of each year. The purpose of the MTP is to identify properties within the County where wireless telecommunications providers are encouraged to research prior to submittal of an application to site a new wireless telecommunications facility. The MTP will help identify existing locations suitable for co-location including locations that may also serve the public safety telecommunications network. Recent amendments to Section 6.18 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides a "place holder" for the adoption of an MTP should the Board of County Commissioners desire to adopt the plan. If the County declines to adopt the MTP, the present zoning ordinance standards for telecommunication towers can still function, but without the availability of the MTP to serve as a reference tool to identify potential locations for co-located wireless telecommunication facilities including locations that may serve or may be required to serve the public safety telecommunication network. The MTP also identifies culturally and environmentally sensitive areas, including habitats and corridors that may support migratory or native species of birds and other wildlife. The MTP contains specific information concerning the mitigation of potential dangers to migratory birds. Starting in March of 2002, the MTP was the subject of several departmental meetings to determine if there were any properties suitable as tower sites. Initial efforts focused on compiling base map information within Orange County. GIS map overlays were subsequently prepared to identify many features. Using one and two-mile buffers around the existing tower sites and one-mile buffers around private utility transmission lines, possible antenna co-location sites were plotted. The displayed buffer areas also helped identify areas irr the County where communications facilities may not exist. Properties listed above, which are located within the wireless communication service gaps, were noted to be acceptable sites for future tower sites. Staff invited potential wireless telecommunication tower stakeholders to discuss possible issues for the MTP and to gauge interest in such a plan. Four such meetings were held from August 2002 to April 2003. A listing of stakeholders involved with the MTP process is provided. In May 2003, the former Director of Emergency Management, rnet with the local Fire Chiefs at which time the MTP was discussed and all expressed interest in getting involved with the MTP. The attached timeline charts key public hearings, stakeholder meetings, separate departmental meetings, and county correspondence regarding the MTP process since March 2002. The MTP contains the following items: 1. A timeline of related departmental staff efforts to involve other departments and the public in the MTP planning process. L. Inventories of existing telecommunication towers within and immediately surrounding Orange County. 3. MTP Goals, policy, and action statements. 4. Cell Tower Sites in Orange County. 5. A map illustrating environmental and cultural constraints. 6. A map illustrating available sites. 7. The Emergency Management service reap. 137 8. Analysis regarding migratory bird mortality due to telecommunication towers. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time with human resources being used from existing department staffs, Eventually, the use of the MTP could provide financial and public benefits. Department involvement would eventually include, but not be limited to Planning and Inspections Department, EMS, Information Services, Purchasing, Public Works, Environmental and Resource Conservation, and Parks and Recreation,. RECOMMENDATION (S): The Planning Department staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance and that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004. The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 17, 2004. 138 139 ORDINANCE TO PUBLIC HEARING May 24, 2004 Bold = New Language S#fikethreagkt = Proposed Deleted Language An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, that the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Amend Section 8.8.17a.2 a).. (Page 8-24) to add new language to read as follows: 1. On existing towers or other structures; 2. On utility poles; 3. On industrially- orcommercially-zoned properties; 4. On agricultural land; 5. On a stealth facility; 6. At another location not identified above as priority 1, 2, 3, er 4, or 5. Section 2. Amend Section 6.18.5. (Page 6-25-n) to revise the existing language to read as follows: The Plan wiN assists providers in their search for suitable locations to build their service network. The County n}ay has developed the Plan, with accompanying (maps}; and appendices, which would display locations within the County's jurisdiction where property owners have expressed interest in allowing cohstruction of telecommunications equipment. Information that ray-#~e is shown on the base Plan will includes: existing towers, tower sites in neighboring counties, two-mile buffer around each tower, major electric power transmission lines, County-defined Natural Areas, historic properties, properties with archaeological potential, scenic corridors, tower-related bird mortality information, lEnewn--h+r~--r~+ Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and publicly-owned or quasi-public lands. In all cases, an interest in allowing the placement of telecommunication equipment on the property/properties shall have been expressed in writing. In order to participate in the MTP all owner(s), or their legally binding representatives, shall submit an application on a form prepared by the Planning Department and meet the following guidelines: a) Information to be provided. Ail telecommunication providers who elect to construct facilities on properties in the Plan shall provide all necessary and requested 140 information to the County's telecommunication consultant. ~ Plan modification. After adoption of the initial Plan any subsequent modification of the Plan may be considered annually at the February Quarterly Public Hearing. Any applicant requesting modification of the Plan shall make application to the Zoning Officer on or before December 1S` of each year. the-fee-fsF~frre ' ' c) Withdrawal from ttre Plan. Withdrawal from the Plan is permitted if any owner submits, to the Planning Director, a notarized statement requesting withdrawal from the Plan. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be placed in the file of published ordinances. Section 4. This Ordinance is effective upon adoption. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that this Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County" is adopted. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner adopted this ~ day of the foregoing Ordinance was 2004. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of .2004. Clerk of the Board of Commissioners 141 Orange County, North Carolina WIRELESS ELEMENT OF THE MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN (MTP) I. INTRODUCTION What is the MTP The MTP identifies existing and potential future wireless telecommunication sites and structures, addresses a number of related siting issues in an organized and systematic manner and serves as an informational tool for implementation of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter "Ordinance" or "Zoning Ordinance"), The Ordinance provides a "placeholder" to allow Orange County to adopt an MTP, should it desire to do so through the public hearing process.. Even if the MTP is approved, wireless tower applicants may apply to locate a facility on properties identified in the MTP only after obtaining a special use permit and meeting all other Zoning Ordinance and building code requirements, Planning Processes Startingrn March of 2002, the MTP was the subject of several departmental meetings to determine if there were any properties suitable as tower sites. Initial efforts focused on compiling base map information within Orange County, which identified: 1. Tax parcels, 2, Road networks, 3. Bodies of water; 4. Township boundaries, and 5, Watershed areas where commercial uses are not permitted, GIS map overlays were subsequently prepared to identify the following features: 1. Duke Power transmission lines and properties, 2, Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation transmission lines and properties, .3. Duke Forest properties, 4. Eno River State Park properties, 5. Orange County School District properties, 6. Orange Water and Sewer Authority properties, 7. Fire stations, 8. County-owned properties, 9, Semi-public properties, (i.e., churches and community center), 10. Existing telecommunication towers, and 11, Volunteer Agriculture District properties. Staff invited potential telecommunication tower stakeholders to discuss possible issues for the MTP and to gauge interest in such a plan, Four such meetings were held from August 2002 to January 200.3. A listing of stakeholders involved with the MTP process 142 is provided in Appendix E. The timeline shown on Page 3 charts key public hearings, stakeholder meetings, separate departmental meetings and county correspondence regarding the MTP process since March 2002. Why Uo the Plan? Within the County are important natural and cultural resources that telecommunication facilities may negatively and irreparably impact. Planners can use the County Environmental Impact Ordinance to identify such resources after the fact during the review of an application for a telecommunication tower special use permit; or the planning staff can give landowners, the general public and telecommunication industry representatives MTP information in advance of the application process that will guide and influence the potential siting of communication facilities. The MTP will help identify public lands not appropriate for tower sites. Such public lands may include Orange County Nature Preserves, the Little River Regional Pazk, New Hope Park, Lake Orange, and the Eno River State Pazk. Other public and private lands aze identified that may also be inappropriate as tower sites, such as natural areas and wildlife corridors, lands under conservation easements, prime forest and agricultural lands, cultural and historic sites and lands adjoining scenic corridors. The MTP includes existing towers, tower sites in neighboring counties, two-mile buffer around each tower, major electric power transmission lines, County-defined Natural Areas, historic properties, properties with archaeological potential, scenic corridors, known bird migration patterns through the County, Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and publicly-owned orquasi-public lands. The MTP contains specific information concerning the mitigation of potential dangers to migratory birds. However, [here are a number of public and private lands identified in the MTP that could make acceptable tower sites, such as fire halls, community centers, OWASA properties, certain county parks and possibly some school sites, together with private lands in certain portions of Duke Forest and voluntary agricultural districts represent possible future sites for collocated telecommunication facilities. Using two-mile buffers around the existing tower sites, and by locating major electric power transmission lines, possible antenna co-location sites aze plotted in the MTP. The displayed buffer areas also trelp identify regions of the County where communications facilities may not exist. The purpose of the MTP is to identify properties within the County where wireless telecommunications providers are encouraged to reseaznh prior to submittal of an 2 143 ~- o w ~ ~ N ti C 43 . ~" n:: ~ y ~ A ,' z ~~. o ~ ~ a a a; c o ~ o .~ ~ g ~ y c ti `G U c H ~ ~ ~ ?? "d N ~ pp o v-. ~_~ ~ '~ ~ ~ b Rt ~ ~ ~ O . U ' ~+ ~ U a " V u h . ;~ ~ G ~ ° '~ U cn 1-i ~ U O w~~ y a ~; v ~ , ~ ~ ~ U " ' ~ ... H m ~ p, H ~ ~ P~ " Q p,a ti ~ ou ~F ~H~1 ~C ~ 3 G ti 7~-+ N O ~ ~ ti pq ~ O ~ ~ 8 b > o Z ~ '; ~ ~NOa ~ . O r U 3~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .o ~ : ~ -o N 6~ ' G '''S<'~ Q ~ w N ti ~ ~.~ ~~" ~~ O w 'a ; ~ 0 ti F C O •y ~ U ~ - ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~.y Ry ~ v `' '7~ , , ,r,~.,~„5z CL Qi 144 application to site a new wireless telecommunications facility. To encourage prospective telecommunication service providers to consider the placement of towers within voluntary agricultural districts, including those identified in the MTP, the text of Section 8.817a.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is to be amended to include voluntary agricultural districts as preferred priority four (4), and to reprioritize former priority four (4) and five (5) to priority five (5) and six (6), respectively. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance an application to site a communications facility may not be approved unless it demonstrates that the telecommunication equipment may not be sited at a higher priority site because of commercial impracticability or because no higher priority site is available. The MTP will also help identify existing locations suitable for collocation including locations that may also serve the public safety telecommunication network. Another aspect of the MTP strikes a balance between the needs and concerns of the general public and [hose of the telecommunication industry. Citizens have expressed concerns r'egar'ding property values, aesthetics, safety and the environmental concerns related to proposed tower facilities. Yet, with the changing wireless communications technology and public demand for wireless services, a real need to provide wireless communication services exists. The MTP is an informational tool to assist with the reasonableness, orderliness and rationality of the decision regarding the placement of wireless telecommunication towers, accompanying equipment and infrastructure. Its objective is that Urange County citizens benefit from an improved wireless infrastructure and service without sacrificing the character of the rural community. End Products The MTP process will result in: ® A plan document, with accompanying data and illustrations, • Both text and maps will be posted on the Orange County website, for better communications opportunities with the interested public and those seeking to expand the wireless network, • Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the MTP reference tool into the Ordinance. IL PLANNING CONTEXT Public Involvement Land owners and county, school, telecommunication industry and semi-public facility representatives were informed by letter and phone to attend and participate in the process of planning and prepazing the MTP. Facilities in other Orange County communities are part of this plan, but like Chapel Hill, the municipalities may have their own policies and ordinances tv address issues related to the siting of telecommunication towers. Appendix F summarizes the Chapel Hill policies on telecommunication towers. 4 145 Coordination with County Departments The infrastructure associated with wireless telecommunication facilities is inherently essential to the efficient operation of a number of County departments. Emergency Medical Services needs to maintain quality wireless service throughout the County. The Sheriff's and fire departments have similar needs. Information Systems also desires to provide quality communication-based technology services, a goal shared by other public agencies in and around Orange County. The MTP provides valuable information concerning the present state and future needs of emergency and other communications networks of public concern. Establish MTP Goals, Policy, and Applicable Action Steps The plan will: • Identify public, private and semi-public properties for the overall public benefit that may be suitable for' telecommunication facility sites • Develop cooperation with telecommunication facility stakeholders to encourage collocation. • Limit the number of future tower sites by identifying available sites for communications facilities, Policy Statement. The County supports tJze conservative application of inzpr°oved wireless commurzicatiorz technologies within its bomuiaries. While retaining and enhancing its local zoning authority and its sensitivity to community concerns, the County provides public and private property owners, conununications service provider°s arzd other interested citizens acrd parties with irzforrrzation that rrzay help guide the pr°oper siting of commurzicatiorzs facilities arul meet Zorzirzg Ordinance standards tTzat are designed to safeguard the public health, safety arzd welfare of County residents. Applicable Action Steps. • Continue to schedule an annual meeting of wireless communication providers to discuss and identify the location of existing and possible future collocated communications facilities. • Maintain an inventory of existing towers, utility poles and other suitable stnzctures, antennas and co-locations. • Determine, with respect to existing MTP sites, whether zoning compliance exists, whether all applicable permits and leases have been obtained from the service providers in the County and whether the permits remain current. • Explore opportunities to research and include within the MTP information concerning areas andrssues of cultural and environmental concern. • Receive and process applications from public and private property owners for inclusion or removal from the MTP of properties that may serve as potential sites for collocated telecommunication facilities. 146 III. PLAN ELEMENTS Inventory In Orange County and the four incorporated towns there aze presently 67 known telecommunication tower sites, and local governments continue to receive permission to locate additional towers. The average tower height is 222 feet with a range between 60 and 1,144 feet. (Appendix C provides a summary of each tower site,) As of November 1998 within North Cazolina, four percent of the 1,663 telecommunication towers were at least 800 feet high, five per cent were between 500 and 800 feet tall, nearly half were between 300 and 500 feet, and 42 per cent were under 300 feet tall. Thirteen of the telecommunication towers in Orange County are over 200 feet in height. All but three towers over 200 feet are guyed. From these figures and mortality studies conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, since 1986 the number of bird deaths attributed to telecommunication towers in Orange County is estimated to range from 230,000 to 320,000 birds, or about 13,000 annually. However, no one has conducted local studies to confirm these mortality estimates. Guyed towers were all constructed before 1992 and all but one of the monopole towers were built after 1995. At least twenty of the towers have co-located antenna arrays. Since Ianuary 2003 there has been only one building perrrrit for' a new tower facility issued, while sixteen permits were issued for co-located facilities. Thus, except for Cowers on electric power poles or poles mounted on a municipal water tower, all towers constructed after 1995 were monopole or lattice-tower construction, due to technology demands and new federal regulations. Figure 1 charts the 67 known tower sites listed in Table 1, including five, which have been perrrritted, but not constructed or removed. Also listed in Figure 2 aze towers in other adjoining counties, which may affect wireless coverage within Orange County. Tabte 1. Telecommunication Facilities within Orange County, 2004. Township Constructed (in feet) Construction Number Jurisdiction City/ Year Height Type of Owner Case 1 Little River Township 1990 737 Guyed * Alltel 2 Little River Township 1990 290 Guyed * Crown Castle Atlantic A-3-94 4 Hillsborough Township 1996 157 Guyetl 5 Hillsboroughr City 178 Monopole 6 Cheeks Township 1989 400 Guyed 7 Cheeks Township 1995 200 Guyed 8 Bingham Township 1992 300 Guyed 9 Chapel Hill Township 1992 300 Guyed 10 Chapel Hill City 2002 Water Tower 11 Chapel Hill Carrboro 1985 220 Lattice 12 Chapel HiII City 2002 Rooftop 13 Chapel Hill Carrboro 180 Monopole 14 Bingham Township 1984 1,144 Guyed 15 Chapel Hill Township 1995 195 Monopole 16 Cheeks Township 1995 375 Guyed ' Crown Castle Atlantic A-11-93 ' Crown Castle Atlantic * Crown Castle Atlantic A-8-89 Sprint PCS A-8-95 Sprint PCS A-3-92 Sprint PCS A-2-92 Sprint PCS ' Crown Castle Atlantic SUP-B-3-85 GTE Wireless Sprint PCS * Clear Channel SUP-B-3-84 ' Crown Castle Atlantic A-1-95 * Spectra Site A-2-95 6 147 17 Cheeks Township 1996 230 Lattice ` 360 Communications A-6-96 18 Hillsborough Township 1996 160 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic A-1-96 19 Eno Township 2000 160 Monopole `Bell South A-3-96 20 Eno Township 1996 135 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic A-5-96 21 Chapel Hill Township 1996 250 Lattice 'Spectra Site A-9-96 22 Chapel HiII Township 1996 197 Monopole 360 Communications A-12-96 23 Eno Township 1998 180 Monopole Sprint PCS A-6-97 24 Eno Township 1990 100 Guyed Elmo Yancey A-4-90 25 Cedar Grove Township 170 Lattice EMS 26 Hillsborough City 120 Lattice EMS 27 Chapel Hill City Electrical Pole 28 Chapel Hill City < 100 Guyed 29 Chapel Hill City <60 Monopole 30 Chapel Hill City Lattice 31 Chapel HiII Carrboro 1984 60 Water Tower Alert Cable SUP-B-1-84 32 Hillsborough Township 1984 150 Lattice Piedmont Electric SUP-B-2-84 33 Hillsborough Township 1982 160 Guyed Duke University app-12-6-82 34 Chapel Hill Carrboro 1995 176 Monopole `Crown Castle Atlantic A-4-95 35 Chapel Hill Carrboro 151 Monopole 'Town of Carrboro 36 Hillsborough City 1994 225 Guyed "Durham FM Club, Inc A-9-94 37 Cheeks Township 1999 199 Monopole Spectra Site A-5-97 38 Eno Township 170 Water Tower A, T & T W fireless 39 Chapel Hill Township 1999 199 Water Tower Spectra Site A-6-98 40 Bingham Township 1999 190 Monopole `SBA, Inc, A-3-99 41 Bingham Township 2000 190 Monopole `SBA, Ina, A-1-00 42 Chapel Hill Township 2000 178 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic A-2.00 43 Ghapel Hill Township 2001 150 Monopole Nextel, Inc, A-3-00 44 Eno Township 2000 190 Monopole `Crown Castle Atlantic A-5-00 46 Little River Township 2001 190 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic A-5-01 47 Cedar Grove Township 2001 195 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic A-6-01 48 Chapel Hill Township 177 Lattice American Tower 49 Chapel Hill Township 240 Lattice Duke Energy 50 Hillsborough City 1999 190 Monopole 'American Tower 51 Hillsborough City 2002 190 Monopole "Sprint PCS 53 Chapel Hill UNC Lattice 54 Chapef Hill UNC Water Tower 55 Ghapel HiII City 2002 80 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic 56 Chapel Hill City 2002 80 Monopole Crown Castle Atlantic 57 Bingham Township 1985 785 Guyed Vilcom SUP-4-84 58 Chapel Hill City Guyed 59 Chapel HiII City Electrical Pole 60 Cedar Grove Township Guyed 61 Chapel Hill Township Monopole 62 Eno Township 2003 Electrical Pole 63 Mebane City Water Tower 64 Cedar Grove Township Lattice 7 148 173 ` Co-location Tower Table 2. Telecommunication Facilities within Two Miles of Orange County. Count Road Intersection Latitude Lon itude 1 Alamance Thom @ Saxpahaw 36°56'54.2"N '79°16'36.4"W 2 Alamance Marys Grove @ Mt. Willen 36°00'10.0"N 79°16'45.4"W 3 Alamance CityFlall 36°05'15.5"N 79°16'08.9"W 4 Durham Btvins @ County Line 36°06'48.8"N 78°58'16.6W 5 Durham Chambers @ Bacon 36°13'27.7"N 78°56'21.12"W 6 Durham east of Peazson @Rougemont 36°08'50.8"N 78°56'04.1"W 7 Durham between US 70 & I 85 36°02' 11.5"N 78°58'02.8"W 8 Durham north of I 85, west of Cole Mi11 36°02'06.1"N 78°57'52.3"W 9 Durham north of I 85, west of Cole Mill 36°02'03.6"N 78°57'46.2"W 10 Durham north of I 85, west of Cole Mill 36°02'01.6"N 78°57'39.7"W 11 Durham I 85 @ NC 157 36°01'35.9"N 78°57'29.0"W 12 Durham Cole Mill @ Reservoir 36°02'22.7"N 78°57'36.8"W 13 Durham Cornwallis @ IS/501 35°59'05.6"N 78°57'42.2"W 14 Durham 15/501 @ University 35°58'06.5"N 78°57'58.4"W 15 Durharn Mt. Moriah @ County Line 35°59'38.2"N 78°57'49.9"W 16 Durham Feazing ton east of Morgan Creek 35°52'02"N 78°59'55"W 17 Chatham Edwazds Mt. North of Lystra Road 35°50'S6"N 79°02'59"W 18 Chatham 15/501 @ commercial center 35°50'45"N 79°05'21"W 19 Chatham 15/501 north of Lystra Road 35°50'26"N 79°05'29"W 149 Guidelines to Identify Optimal Tower Sites within Orange County. The MTP will identify areas of environmental and cultural concern to discourage improper siting of telecommunication facilities. To complement the required FCC-NEPA regulatory process, Orange County will identify the following natural or cultural features: Mapped Feature Page Number within the Land Use Element of the Orange County Com rehensive Plan Scenic Road Corridors 2.2-56 Historic Sites 2.2-46 Archaeolo ical Remains Potential 2.2-51 Wildlife Corridors 2.2-43 Natural Areas /Wildlife Habitats 2.2-34 Wetlands 2.2-15 Flood lanns and Stream Buffers 2.2-10 Properties under recorded conservation easements Prime Farmland 2.2-19 As these documents are modified over time, when the BOCC officially modify their content, the natural or cultural feature maps are automatically revised for their application to the MTP -Wireless Element. Figure 2 depicts these natural and cultural features. By avoiding these natural or cultural features, telecommunication tower developers can document their attempt to minimize visual impacts and potential negative environmental consequences that towers may create, Preferred Tower Sites. The MTP will identify lands within the County Zoning ,jurisdiction that: 1. Are industrially- or commercially-zoned, 2. Are forested, and 3. Are sites still under consideration as telecommunication sites, (Please refer to tlae list in Appendix A.) Identifying these lands in the MTP will assist with prioritizing the preferred location for potential telecommunication sites .Figure 3 illustrates some of the preferred locations for potential tower sites within Orange County. Emergency Management Services Cellular Coverage. The on-going County Communications Plan provides information helpful to locating gaps or poor coverage within Orange County in the emergency management communications network. Figure 4 shows the present deficiencies within Orange County, In combination with Figures 1, 2, and 3, Figure 4 supplements a factual, objective basis for cell tower siting decisions that may serve the citizens of Orange County by enhancing the emergency management communications network. Orange County Telecommunication Plan -Coverage Area Fi ure 4 . ' L ,, ' ~~ +-: 1 i ' ) ~ - f , ,. - - _ _ __ 1 . . ! II . c . y .. _ .. : - ~:~ --. n a:i .x n: h , x rcx L f. a . i t fV L i fr. ui'F h~.r. ~. .. - - . v a~ c f: ~ ~ i ;i r ~ I r' L r . . ~ 1 'tz yl t b ! t Y t ~ rj L ~~ ! r f~ r f-lr r . .. ' . x . If 1F o r X ,. .. _ :. .. i e f r o- , ~; _. t .gy L-...,tc _ e m r a-.,,a .. ' z Iy y .. _ . r, ~r ~ s s ~ . r x r n tf p tf tH tf~ ,. r r t CY f T .r ~. .....^„ S ~ C F ~s. m ~ . r +, tra xt~ t`; f ~ # : N., ~ ` ` .- ' ~ I -, ~. ENO t~,~ .. t It I ~ 1£ F t % ~ ~ ,,r x ) f . ~'~ Oranya 7 E1. t :, ~ ' , r IT ® ( R ~ ~ V' ' ` h ~( J t F C 1 ~ A ~ QL^a"^ ~ i r l k , 7~ ~ . t q r f _ ~1 x 1 `OCEM u r x~j c a ~ , t ' 1 ~' 1 1 J , 4 e ,_x3 r Y 1 n ?c :~i"~ D r i ! .~ n V ~ f :: 1 .. .. ~V~ I f ]; ~~ '.r4 ~ F 1( f. ..:' 1 ` 1 i 1 , r a . n C' l: I ti ,.i4 . r)l , , - ~ t. o.. r ;:. i:~ "'`y !l)i a teSs .°}1 r~tl0 ~ i ` 74 = ~ . t C4 y ..^. E _ . ...1. G i 5 P(I~ ~fI a c Iir ~ y ~ ~ 6 ~ ^ f s ~ ~ '.tH Y l" r ~ .. ~ ` ~ r 8UlL1T r - 1Y _ rf~ = ~ oe4E .. ;.. o- { ~ ',rFt~(`~ 1 54 ~ a . 5 r 51 ~rr~ 15 r Fl ~.. p r , k t " i~ . ~ - ' ~ r : ~ : Vt4)NCTOVdFF. . . ~ c , L;:a I1~ rs ;. ,, rx n is ~ IF 4 rl+:~:l .r: ~ ~ . r,i .~.. ~~ ~ ~ . c t ,.yl: f ~ ~ ~ 1 r ; t :` ~ Legend I ~ t.' p t'^"'G - ' ~ j f f, 6 PolCntvl Sil^s ELI ~ - t i 1 1 P~:11C ~ ~- - iannaf: I;.. -~ - ~ Chatham .. ~'. _ i ; A, ~ ' ' '` j?` ~ P'stabl? m L'ghl OId9s P ortal le 'n fdlvdi¢~~ altlas A ~ .. 151 Bird Mortality Standards for Telecommunication Towers Within the continental United States scientists have inventoried some 836 migratory bird species. The vast majority (778) of these are nomgame species; the balance is legally hunted, Over .350 species are vulnerable to tower collisions, according to United States Fish and Wildlife Department experts, The nature of their vulnerability is presented below in the Issues section. Conservative estimates nationally put annual bird deaths resulting directly from collisions with towers, guy wires, or the ground at four to five million. Migrating birds are also vulnerable to wind generator turbines, overhead power lines, glass windows, oil spills and other pollution sources, aircraft, vehicles, electrocution, predation, pesticides, and a genera] loss of habitat, To put the four to five million tower kills in perspective and according to Audubon Society estimates, 10,000 to 40,000 birds die annually from collisions with wind turbines, sixty to eighty million collide with motor vehicles, and 98 million died after flyingrnto plate glass windows. Appendix B lists monthly frequency of over 330 bird species, which have been counted in the Orange County area in 2002, as compiled by the Chapel Hill Bird Club. Appendix B illustrates the trends in numbers of nearly 100 of the most common species observed in Orange County from 1999 through 200.3. Most of the local bird species aie migratory and are susceptible to the effects of telecommunication towers. Some of the more well known bird observation sites include the Bolin Creek Greenway, Cane Creek Reservoir, Dairyland Road, Few's Ford Access in the Eno River State Park, along the Eno River at Pleasant Green Road, Lake Orange, the Mason Farm, and University Lake. Of the 227 species of Neotropical migratory birds listed in documented telecommunication tower bird kills, all but 28 are listed in the Chapel Hill Bird Club's inventory. Species found within Orange County represent 88% of all species documented in the tower kills, and over 97% of the total birds listed. Most of the Neotropical migratory birds of North America migrate through Orange County or are commonly found within the area. Issues. Along major bird migration routes, a single telecommunication tower may account for as many as .3,000 annual migratory songbird deaths, according to recent studies. Documented single bird death events range as high as 12,000 fatalities, If animal scavenging is considered, these figures could be even higher. Three factors influence bird tower mortality. First, lit towers over 200 feet in height attract migrating birds, particularly if the structure uses red strobe warning lights with a short, regular pulsing rate. Secondly, electromagnetic towers emit energy in the microwave spectrum, which may disrupt migrating bird's ability to navigate at night, by creating force fields and resonating with avian magnetite, the bird's internal navigation system. There may be a trade off between lesser tower heights, which increase human exposure to electromagnetic radiation, and greater tower heights, which increase I1 152 migratory bird exposures. Finally, the towers pose a physical obstacle in which birds can become entangled or into which they may collide. Vulnerable migratory species breed during the spring and summer in North America and migrate to the southern states, the Caribbean, or Central and South America during the fall and winter. They generally fly at night and are most susceptible to tower collisions during misty, foggy, rainy, or low-cloud atmospheric conditions. During these inclement weather conditions, migratory birds seem to switch from their innate, nighttime navigational abilities to visual reckoning. They can become attracted, more accurately, they are reluctant to leave the lit area of red, pulsing navigational strobe lights, continue to fly around the lit tower, and often collide with or become entangled with the tower and tower guy wires. Migration occurs over a broad front in May and September-October across the Triangle region. Orange County does not seem to have a significant migratory flight pattern. Most species migrate fairly evenly across the county and can stop over wherever there are woods, according to local experts. Options. The United Scares Fish and Wildlife Service strongly encourages telecommunication towers to: 1. Collocate on existing structures; 2. Keep telecommunication tower height under 200 feet, so that it can be unguyed, and unlit; 3. Consider the cumulative and individual impacts of each tower; 4. If collocation is not possible, consider locations in existing "antenna farms;" 5. For towers over 200 feet high, install white, up-shielded, night lighting with a minimum number of lights, minimum intensity, and minimum flashing rates, under FCC telecommunication tower regulations; 6. For guyed towers, use daytime, visual bird diverter devices; 7. Locate towers away from wildlife habitat, wetlands, or natural resource corridors, and minimize natural habitat disruption; 8. Locate proposed sites away from known avian habitat areas, 9. Accommodate at least two additional antenna arrays on each new tower; 10. Require all lighting and equipment to be shielded and buffered with natural vegetation; 11. Coordinate with local researchers to conduct migratory bird mortality studies to gain better information on the impacts of different tower height, configuration and lighting systems; and 12. Provide legal mechanisms to remove towers no longer in use or when determined to be obsolete. It does not appear that any area of Orange County is more susceptible to foggy and ]ow visibility conditions than others, except for wetlands and riverine corridors. 12 153 The Zoning Ordinance requires that abandoned, derelict, or unused towers be removed. It requires collocation and collocation capacity of a minimum of two antenna arrays for monopole towers and three antenna arrays for self-supportllattice or guyed towers, Applications f'or towers greater than I50 feet in height must be approved through a Class A Special Use Permit process. The Ordinance also requires that towers not be artificially Lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other federal or state agency, The Ordinance mandates that the tower siting application show that the equipment planned for a proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing facility, It includes preferences for the siting of telecommunications equipment on existing towers or utility poles. There are two existing antenna farms in the County, but new antenna farms are discouraged, New monopole, lattice or guyed telecommunications towers are not permitted within''/z mile of any existing tower, unless,justification is provided, Pursuant to the Ordinance, an applicant may be required to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment and "all applications [must) contain a demonstration that the tower 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." If the Board of County Commissioners so directs, text amendments may be considered in the future to adopt additional substantive requirements to further address these environmental issues as they relate to the public health, safety and general welfare. Use of The Master Telecommunication Plan Map The four plan figures and text will be imported onto the Orange County Website so that industry representatives who are looking for potential tower sites and the public have direct access to these public documents.. The map illustrates factors that may impact the suitability of proposed telecommunication tower locations, by: 1. Identifying sites with the potential to contain archaeological artifacts and if the site were pursued, a more detailed study would be required, 2. Identifying sites not containing prime agricultural lands. Orange County prime agricultural soils typically have small areas. Few prime soils completely cover an entire parceh Specific tower sites on selected parcels could be shifted internally to avoid removing prime soils from farm production. 3, Identifying scenic road corridors, Selected parcels, which abut scenic road corridors or abut parcels along such corridors, must describe how the tower facility will not degrade the rural, scenic qualities of the road corridor, 4. Identifying all existing tower facilities and each tower's two-mile buffer, Any tower proposal located within such tower buffer must provide additional ,justification for the location. 5. Identifying other obvious natural features that may not be good tower locations, such as wetlands, floodways and flood fringe areas, natural areas /wildlife habitats and corridors, and permanent conservation easements. Within the land area remaining, this protocol locates: 1, Pazcels still under consideration as tower sites, 2. Parcels zoned commercially or industrially, 13 154 3. Voluntary agriculture districts, 4. Electrical power line towers for possible co-location opportunities, 5. Forested parcels, and 6. Areas identified as lacking adequate cellular service. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The MTP maps should be adopted and features shown on the maps and supplementary documentation should be used to guide future tower siting decisions. 14 155 APPEIVDICE5 A. List of Enrolled Properties B. Listing of Birds Observed in Orange County (1999 to 2003) C. Chapel Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency Check of Birds in Orange County D. Tower Facility Inventory E. Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder List F, Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies 15 156 157 b "~ Y~ H p; o W ,.~' N /y^ ,d, N (rP94)1 ~ ~ V a~ V.1 z W W W ~ U W ~ w0 .n ~ ~ O O O -_ ~ w ~ E cq ~ u~ ~ ~ m U ~ ~ v ~- U1 IL LL LL L1. Cn ~ o c o N Z Q U' Z ~U ~pZ ~ ~ ~ ~U m c m _ C~c ~ m ac ~ U m ~ ~ oz ~ o ~_ ~ o -o 0 0 ~ ~ W Oo O~ ~o ~° ~o N O~ O 'O N d ~" .O Q 'S] a1 D ~ ~ OJ N ti .C (~ ~ O t6 :N Q M W co S ~n U o~ T Z U= a+ L *+ = ~ v- d Q Q N CO CD N O N o~ N N ~- M r-~-N ~ Md; ~- ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (JNNC 7 I~CVM NNOMM '"~ N f M (D CO N M LC> Cf) CO (O N f~ ~ f~ ti M M J ...~ C ~ O U o. "" ~ o ~ ~ ~ ii ~ ~ C W L N ~ Y 0 4- Q L U j c o ~ ' a m c o u. U ~, ' O ~ c ~ ` C7 O ~ ~ ~ p U ~ m U m c W rn W 'o c c ~ c o c Q ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ z w O ~ O o O d; U W 158 N d m ydy~' 0 is p" A ,'~, z- W a a ~W w a R{ ~ N (6 U U U U (0 (0 ~ Q Q Q Q LL lL }, ~ ~' ~' Z' ~ ~ ~ ~ U m U ~ U ro U V C. G. C. G ~ i ~ ~ -~ C ~`+ C a~-~ G w -o ~ ~ -o ~ -° > ~ s o U Z ~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ G Z ~ .c ~ ~ o ~ ui N ~rn a. ~ ,GU EU +~-= m c`o =o ~ ~ o~Z ~Z ~~ ~ O `o G ~° _ -a Z ~o ~- ~ -moo ~~ ~'y Q ~ cC6 N N O~ Q (6 O r ~ CO ~ CO C O cNp = S Z r- W co W o~ = Z U o Q °~ Q ~ rn NQmwchm W o ChNQ Qor~Qo°~ ~rr ~ ~O~ ~ Q~QQNN OOr rr~ O~-NrMO s-r r rNr ~" r Q Q ~, rrr NNI~- ~Y ~h d'C'")OM NN O I~'d'C`') CO m~+j~~(p (p rrr NNr NNNNrN d'~t C`') rNN NN C+'7 d' d' d' d' d' CO CO (O N N r CO CO CO CO CO CO CV N N .- ~' N ~- tC> C m °~ Y U ~ ~ ~ ~' m ~ ~ ~ m ~- m ~ o ~ ~ ~~ (~ ~ .~ ~ ~+ m ~ Q vim-' °z5 ~ Cn ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ U ~ ~ ~ N C ~ O U J O ~ W S J ~ ~' m K N d 01 O N U1 5 d m 0 m o. c t U 159 M ~ d L t6 T C ~ '_ d ~ m U A Z ~~ c c c c c c c -a c- ~ y o 0 0 0 ~ 0 i ~ 0 V o Y N o iY .N 4~ ++ - V C fn (f1 (n to Cn fn fn fl ~ Q C N ~ ~ N N ' ~ . ~~ . N~ o~ c ~ iL W i.i u_ ii ii. ~ i.L U m ~ E a- W ~ct O ~ R ~ Q O ~ U '~ p o U ~U v ~ N ~ d -oU ~Z NZ N ~U N _ O vi L ~ Z O ~ Z W N ~ O O N~ ~ O Y ~ C~ U ~ Z N ~ ?; y ~ ,' c ~ 3U oU ~Z .;_= U ~ U ~ S ~ U o m o- ~ ~-a ~ m > ~ c Z ~ o v ° ~ 2a ~~ m ° ~ cQa °~ ~ o Q >, Z c ° ° o ° U D > ~ ~ + ~~ ~U nU ~ mw d - ° z~ ~~ a c v L c ~ c N ~ N N ~ ~ ~1 .II G N ~ ~ ~ ~ r N M 07 ~- N T- ~ d R ~ N N th ti Ln tf) t~ a ~ ~ m ~_ G1 ~ C C ~ ` ~ tC! W ~- U C N m c C. ~' O O O O U te C N ~ ~ ~- m m O r .. Q ~U N ~ ~ ~ ~ O c ~ ~ U a fA ; Q. a U m `~ `C c~i p 0 a ~ m o ~ E c :,_, o m ~ y ~; ~ D iy m c o ~_ ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 3 > ~ ~ o ii w ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ o z ~, c ~ o a~ c o W i~ 3~ iri ~ o 'oo 0 0 ~ ~ m o ~ d o ~ C7 (~ > o ~ ~ O 'o ~ `~ v ~ ` m ~ = Lr- w = m ~ ' o ~ m C O Q O U C L N N N N ~ N C N a I - ~ c V U U U W Z W W Zc i~ 160 161 APPENDIX B -- Listing of Birds Observed Orange County --1999-2003 TOTALS FOR ALL ROUTES The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of routes on which each species was recorded (total number of routes = 12), This list includes some species nesting (or probably nesting) in Orange County but not recorded on any route this year. Last updated: 27 .Tiny 2003 Abbrev Species 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 GBHE Great Blue Heron 2(2) 4(3) 1(1) 2(1) 2(1) GRHE Green Heron 4(3) 3(3) 2(2) 1(1) 0(0) BLVU Black Vulture 1(1) 7 (4) 4 (2) 21(2) 2 (1) TUVU Turkey Vulture 3(3) 11(2) 4(3) 17(4) 9(2) CAGO Canada Goose 77 (9) 143 (3) 172 (7) S8 (4) 64 (6) ~S~IODIJ Wood Duck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2) MALL Mallard 4(1) 10(2) 7(2) 2(1) 3(1) SSHA Sharp-shinned Hawk 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(1) COHA Cooper's Hawk 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0} 0 (0) RSHA Red-shouldered Hawk 7 (4) 4 (3) 6 (4) 5 (3) 9 (4) $ WI-IA.Broad-winged Hawk 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) R.THA Red-tailed Hawk 4 (2) 2 (2) S (3) 4 (4) 3 (2) WITU Wild Turkey 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 3 (2) 0(0) NOBO Northern Bobwhite 7 (6) 8 (S) 8 (S) 8 (4) 1(I) I{ILL Killdeer 16 (7) 16 (6) S (5) 7 (4) 8 (3) RODO Aock Dove 0 (0) 2 (1) 21(3) 7 (3) 26 (3) MODOMourningDove 229(12) 183(12) 180(12) 223(12) 1SS(11) YBCU Yellow-billed Cuckoo 5 (3) 4 (3) 8 (6) 2 (2) S (4) EASO E Screech-Owt 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1) GROW Great Horned Owl 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 1(1) BAOW Barred Owl 3 (3) 1(1) 3 (3) I (1) 3 (1) CWWT Chuclc-Wilt's-Widow I(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) WPWI Whip-Poor-Wilt 1(1) 5(I) 3(2) S(Z) 2(2) CHSW Chimney Swift S9(10) 46(10) 6S(12) 66(11) 70(10) R.THLI Humtningbird 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 7 (3) 7 (4) BEKI Belted Kingfisher 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1) RHWORwi-headed Woodpecker 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1) 0 (0) 0 (0) ~WORed-bellied Woodpecker 7,3(12) SS(12) 60(12) 70(12) S8(12) DOWODownyWoodpecker 22(9) I1 (S) 16(7) 20(9) 17(8) HAWOHairyWoodpeccer 4(3) 0(0) 1(1) 3(3) 1(1) NOFL N Ricker 7 (3) 0 (0) 3 (1) 7 (3) 2 (2) 2005 B-1 162 APPENDIX B -- Listing of Birds Observed PIWO Pileated Woodpecker 1(1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 1(1) 0 (0) EAWP EWood-Pewee 40(11) 36(11) 41(11) 36(11) 34(9) ACFL Acadian Flycatcher S (4) 3 (3) S (2) S (S) 3 (3) EAPH E Phoebe 32 (8) 7 (S) 13 (8) 9 (S) 17 (9) GCFL Gr Crewed Flycatcher 16 (7) 9 (6) 18 (11) 9 (6) 11('7) EAKI E Kingbird 10 (4) 9 (3) 11(7) 7 (4) 7 (3) LOSH LoggerheadShrilce 0(0) 0(0) 3(1) 0(0) 0(0) WEVI White-eyed Vireo 3 (2) 3 (3) 3 (2) 4(3) "1 (S) BHVI Blue-headed Vireo 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) YT'VI Yetlow-throated 2 (2) 2 (2) 4 (4) 3 (2) 9 (6) Vireo WAVI Warbling Vireo 0(0) 1(1) 2(2) 1(1) 1(1) REVI Red-eyed Vireo 120(12) 107(11) 10'7(12) 104(12) 104(12) BLJA Blue lay 4S(11) 35(9) 61(12) S7(12) 48(11) AMCR Am Crow 274 (11) 304 (12) 331(12) 307 (12) 273 (12) FICR Fish Crow S(3) 10(3) 7(3) 2(2) S(3) NRWS SwRaiugh-winged 2(1) 0(0) 12(2) 6(2) 2(1) CLS W CIiFF Swallow 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1) BARS Bam Swallow 48 (6) 3S (6) 64 (7) 34 (S) 31(4) CACH Car Chickadee 109(11) 72(11) 73(10) 67(10) 67(11) TU'I'I I'uftedT'itmouse 1S9(12) 15S(12) 16S(12) 137(12) 149(12) WBNUWhite-brNuthatch 16(8) 20(8) 18(8) 6(3) 16(6) BHNU Brown-headed Nuthatch 6 (4) 8 (4) 22 (S) 9 (5) 2 (2) CARWCarotinaWren 186(12) 133(12) 147(12) 138(12) 179(12) HOWRHouseWran 3(2) 7(1) 5(2) 8(3) 7(1) BGGN B-gGnatcatcher 68(11) 3'7(10) SO(10) 31(9) 51('1) EABL EBluebird 89(12) 102(12) 101(11) 81(11) 90(12) WOTH Wood Thrush 79(12) 74(12) 90(11) '73(1'1) 72(12) AMROAmRobin 73(11) 68(10) 66(10) 88(12) '18(11) GRCA Gray Catbird 18 (7) 11(3) 12 (4) 7 (4) 10 (4) NOMONMockingbird 92(1) 78(12) 94(12) 132(1'L) 88(12) $R'TH Brown Ihrasher 16 (8) 23 (8) 16 (10) 22 (9) 9 (6) EUSI' EurStarling 1S6(I1) 73(11) 109(12) 114(10) 14'7(8) CEDWCedarWaxwing 0(0) 0(0) 8(2) 4(1) 2(1) NOPA NorthernParula 1(1) 2(2) 7(4) 0(0) 'L (1) Y'TWAYellow-throated Warbler 2(2) 1(1) 3(2) 4(2) 2(1) PIWA Pine Warbler 94(10) 99(12) 77(11) 70(11) 42(8) PRAW Prairie Wazbter 4 (2) 9 (4) 11(7) 9 (4) S (2) AMRE Amer Redstart 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1) 0 (0) PROW Prothonotary Warbler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) OVEN Ovenbird 29 (9) 16 (7) 26 (8) 1 S (8) 13 (S) LOWALaWaterthrush i(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(1) KEWA Kentucky Wazbter 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 0(0) COYE Com Yellowthroat 21(6) 18 (8) 19 (8) 25 (9) 32 (8) B-2 16~ APPENDIX B -- Listing of Birds Observed HOWAHoodedWarbler 0(0) 1(1) 3(3) 5(4) 5(4) YBCH Yellow-breasted Chat 10 (6) 13 (8) 15 (6) 18 (7) 12 (5) SUTA Surruner Tanager I6 (7) 17 (9) 17 (9) I S (6) 23 (9) SCTA Scarlet Tanager 6 (5) 3 (3) 9 (6) 5 (.3) 8 (4) EATO ETowhee 55(11) 52(12) 60(12) 90(12) 95(11) CHSP Chipping sparrow 103(11) 94(11) 90(12) 95(11) 88(11) FISP Field Sparrow 37(11) 14(8) 16(7) 25(8) 14(6) GRSP Grasshopper Sparrow 9 (4) 8 (3) 8 (4) 6 (3) 8 (2) SOSP Song Sparrow 1(1) 1(1) 0(0) 1(I) 1(1) NOCANCardinal 299(12) 268(12) 308(12) 306(12) 321(11) BLGR B1ueGrosbeak :34(11) 30(9) 37(11) .30(9) 37(10) INBU Indigo Bunting 130(12) 133(12) 135(12) 97(12) 130(12) DICK Dickcissel 0(0) 0(0) 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) R.WBL Red-wing Blackbird 40 (11) 23 (7) 11(5) 24 (9) 18 (7) EAME EMeadowlazk 75(10) 34(11) 36(10) 25(9) 20(4) COGR ComGrackle 222(12) 111(12) 92(10) 110(10) 94(9) BHCO Br-headed Cowbird 20 (7) 23 (7) 28 (7) 25 (8) 25 (8) OROR Orchard Oriole 4 (4) 5 (4) 4 (3) 7 (4) 7 (4) BAOR. Baltimore Oriole 1(1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) HOFI House Finch 48 (10) 28 (6) 30 (8) 36 (9) 38 (8) AMGO Am Goldfinch 76 (12) 66 (9) 81(12) 107 (12) 78 (0) HOSP House Sparrow 26(6) 13(4) 7(4) 19(5) 17(3) B-3 1G4 165 rPPENDIX G -C hapel Hill B ird C lub W eekly r'req uency ~:nec xiist ver. zooz oszz J anuary F ebruary March Aril May June July Augusl Se [ October Nov Dec Rcd-throated Loon y r yr vrv K yr yr v v y r o r r y r yr yr v Common Loon r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r y r yr vrv y r yr yr K r r a o u u v o o r r Pied-billed Grebe" f e fc to fe f e fe fe fc fi to fe fc u u o 0 o r [ r r r r r r r r r r r r r o e o o u u (c fe f e fe fe fe ( c fe fe fc Homed Grebe u uuuu uuuu uuor r vrv y r r r o 0 0 o u v u u u u u Redmecked Grebe y r K yr r K yr yr v y r K K v x Eared Grebe z z x x x Western Grebe x Black-capped Petrel x Sooty Shearwatcr x Audubon's Shearwater x White-faced Storm-Petrel x Leach's Storm-Petrel x unknown Storm-Petrel x White-tailed Tropicbizd x x Northern Gannet x x x x American White Pelican x x x x x x x Brown Pelican xx x xxxx z xxx xx xx xx Great Cortnomnt x Double-crested CormomnO u u u u u u u u fe fe fe fe e c c c c e c c c c c c c e c e e c e c e c c c fe (c fe fe u u u u u u u u Anhinga ~T K K x American Bittem KKVr vrKK yr yr yr r r r r r r x KKV Kvr vrv yr yr vrv yr yr yr yr yr yr vrv Censt Bittem• Kv Kvr yr KvrK KvrK yr z Great Blue Heron* fe fe fe fe k fe fe fc fe fe fe fc fe fe u u u u u u u u u u u u fe fe c c c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c fe fc "Great White" Heron x x Great Egrel yr K K v K K yr v K yr z r r r r r r r r r r r r o u c c c c c c e c c c fc tc u u r r yr yr yr yr K v Snowy Egret yr K yr yr yr vrv r o u o 0 0 0 0 0 Little Bluc Heron r r r r r r r r r o o u u u u u u o r r Tricolored Heron v yr r r o u o 0 0 0 0 0 o r Cattle Egret r[ r r r v yr yr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r yr vrv yr yr yr Green Heron` KKVC yr KVr Kvrz o uuvu u u uu u uuu uu uu uuuu uu o0 000o r r r r yr yr vrv Black-crowned Night-Heron r r r r r r r r o 0 o r r r r r yr yr vrv yr yr x Yellow-cmd Night-Heron" r r r r r r r r r r o 0 0 o r r r r r r r r yr White Ibis x vrv ou u u uuu v oo vrv yr yr x Glossy Ibis r r r r r yr vrv r r r. o r r r r r r r r r r r r r Wood Stork x f f u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc Tc k fc fc fc tc Black Vulture fc fc fc fc 4 fc fc fc fc fc c c u u u u Turkey Vulture" c c c c e c c c c c e c c e c c c c c e c c e c c c e e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c e c Fulvous Whistling-Duck x x Greater White-fronted Goose x x Snow Goose yr yr K K K K v yr yr KKK r yr K v yr yr K v Canada Goose' c ccc cccc c ccc fe fc fe fe fe fe R fe fe (c fc fe k fc fc fe fe fe fe fc fe fe fe fc c c c c c c c e c c c c Bmnl x x Tundm Swan yr yr yr yr K yr yr yr K v x v r r r r yr yr yr v Mute Swan x x x * f f is t f f fc fc fc fc fc fc (c fc (c fc fc fc fc fc (c fc fc fc fc (c fc fc fc fc u u u u u u u u u u u u Wood Duck u u u u c u u c c c c Gadwall o00o oooo r r K KvrK r r r r ooo oooa American Wigcon o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r vrv yr r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Americnn $lack Duck° v u u u u u v u u u u u o 0 0 0 o r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u u u u u u u u u u u u Mallard' c c cc c ccc c c c c (c fc fc fc fc fc fc Fc fc tc fc fc c c c c c c c c c c c c ccc c c c c c c c c c Blue-winged Tcal" yr v[ vrv K yr K v o o u u o 0 0 0 o r r yr yr yr yr K K r o o u u fc u u o 0 o r r r r r r r yr yr v Northern Shoveler r r r r r r r r r o 0 o K K K v K r r r r r r r r r r r r r Northern Pintail r r o 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r yr yr K r r r r r r o o r r r r Green-winged Teal o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o r r r r K yr v yr r o v u v u u u u u u o 0 0 0 Canvasback r r o r r r r r r r r r r yr yr r r r r r r r r Redhead r r o 0 o r r r r r r r r r r v z r r r r r r r r r Ring-necked Duck fe fe fe f e fe to fc fe fe fe (c o r r r r K yr x yr yr r o fc fe to fc fe fe fc Greater Scaup yr yr r r r r r r yr yr yr v yr yr vrv yr yr yr v Lesser Scaup o 000 0 000 000 o r r r r r r r r o ou 00 0000 Surf Scoter K K K K V yr yr K v White winged Scoter K K K v yr K yr yr yr K v K yr K v Black Scoter x v K yr K v K K Long-Wiled Duck r r vrv vz K yr v K yr yr yr r r r r yr v Bufflehead uuuu uuuu uuuo r yr vrv yr r u uu uuu u Common Goldeneye r r r r r o r r r r r r x o r r r r Hooded Merganser u v u u v u u u u u v u u u r r r r x x o u u u v u u ' Common Merganser° r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Red-breasted Merganser r o r r r r r r r u u u o 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Ruddy Duck o 000 000o oooo KVr KV Vr yr yr KKK 000 00 00 0000 Osprey* KKK yr K K r o u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u o 0 o r yr yr yr Swallow-tailed Kitc z x Mississippi Kile° K K r K r r r r yr yr K v K yr yr yr v[ vrv K K yr Bald Eagle* o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u v fc f e fe fe fc f c fe fc fe f e fe feu u u u u u u u v u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 Norihem Hamer u u u u u u u u u u u v o 0 0 0 0 o r KKK r r r r r r o 0 0 o u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Sharp-shinned Hawk* u u u v u v u u u u u u o 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r r o 0 o c o u u u u u u u u u u u u u Cooper's Hawk" o 0 o v o 00 0000 000 00 00 00 0 o c 00 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 000 0000 0000 00 00 r_~ ~A~~T'1VilTX f -Chanel Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency Checklist var, zoo:o3u J anuary F ebruary March Aril May .lone July Au ust Set October Nov Dec x Northern Goshawk x u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u v u u u u u u u Rcd-shouldered Hawk• u u u v u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u v v u ed Hawk" d i H r r r c u u u u c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r -w ng roa x Swainson's Hawk " ( f ( f f fe (c fe f e fe (c fe f c fc to to f e fe fe fc f e fe fc fc t o fc fe fc f e fe fc fe f e fe fe fc f e fe fc fe f c is fe to f e to Ve Vc Rcd-tailed Hawk e e c c c Rough-legged Hawk y r yr yr v y r yr yr y r yr yr v y r yr yr y r y r yr yr y r yr yr v y r Golden Eagle x r r r r r r r r r r r o o u u u u u u u u u u v u v American Kestrel" v u v u v u u v u v u u u u o 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r yr y r r r o 0 o c r r r r Merlin r r r r r yr y r r r o 0 0 0 o y r yr yr v y r yr yr v Peregrine Falcon y r yr yr v y r yr yr y r yr yr y r yr yr v y r ocoo ooo0 00 o c oooo a 000 0 o ao aoo Wild Turkey" o oooo ovoo oc oo ov 00 000 0 u u u u u Northern Bobwhite" u u v v u u u v u u v u v u u u u u u u u v u v u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u Yellow Rail x Black Rail° x x x x Kin6 Rail" yr yr yr yr v yr yr u< yr yr yr v yr z x inia Rail Vir yr yr yr yr yr yr r yr yr yr yr yr yr v g r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r yr yr Sora Common Moorhen yr v yr yr yr x r u fe fc ~ ~ fe fe fe fe fe fe fc fc American Coat fc to fe fe fe fc fe fe fe fe fe fr u u o 0 o r r r r r r r r r x r r r Snndhill Crane r o o r x r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r Black-bellied Plover r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r American Golden-Plover yr yr Wilson's Plover r r x r r r x r r r x r o a o 0 0 o r r r r v yr x Semipalmated Plover Piping Plover f f f f fe fe fc fe fe (c fe k fe fc fe Te fe Po Ce fc x fe fe fe fe x x fe fc fe fc x e c c c & fc fe fe fe fc fc is fc fe fe fc Killdeer' fe fe Ic (c e c e e Black-ncckcd Stil[ x yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr American Avocet r r r o o u u v r r r r r r r o 0 0 o u u u u u e o 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r Greater Yellowlegs r u r r r r o 0 0 o u u u u v o c o 0 0 o r r r r r r r v Lesser Yellowlegs yr r r r o o u u r u fc fc (c o r fc fc fc fc u v u u o 0 0 0 o r Solitary Sandpiper r r yr yr r r r r r r r W illct r o fe fc fie o r r u u u u v u u o 0 0 0 o r r yr Spotted Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper r r r r r r r r r r r w< yr yr y yr x v yr yr yr v yr yr yr r W himbrel Hudsonian Godwit x x x Marbled Godwit yr yr v yr yr ' r o r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 o r umstone Ruddy I yr yr v yr r r r r r yr y r yr yr yr yr Red Knot r r r r r r o 0 o v u u o r r r r r yr yr Sanderling r r r r r v yr r r r o u v u o o r r r r Semipalmated Sandpiper yr yr v yr yr yr r r o 0 o a r r r r r r r yr yr yr v yr yr yr W eslem Sandpiper r r r o o u v o a r o o u u v u u v o a o 0 0 o v o r r r r r r v Least Sandpiper r r o r r r r o 0 o r r r r r r r r r yr yr yr v yr yr White-romped Sandpiper Baud's Sandier o 0 0 o e o 0 o r r u u u r o v u u v r r r r u v u o yr yr 0 0 0 0 o r r r r yr yr v Pectoral Sandpiper x x r r r r r v v v o 0 o yr v<vr Dunlin yr r r r r r r r r r u v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stilt Sandpiper Buff-breasted Sandpiper r r o 0 0 o yr yr yr -Ruff x z ShoK-billed Dowitcher yr yr yr yr o e o o u u u v Long-billed Dowitcher x yr yr yr v [ yr yr yr yr v[ yr v v u u u Common Snipe u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u o o x yr yr y r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u u u u o o v u American Woodcock' u u u u v u u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r yr yr yr v yr Wilson's Phalaro a r yr Rcd-ncckcd Phalarope x yr yr v r yr yr v yr y Red Phalarope yr z Pomarine Saeger x x x x x Parasitic Saeger r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Gull Lau hin r r r r r r r g g Little Gull Bonapartc's Gull fc (c fc (c fc Cc fc (c x x fc fc fc fc o 0 0 o a r r r x r o o u u c u u u u c c a a Ring-billed Gull a a a a a a n a a a a a c c fe fe (c r r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v u c u Hemng Gull uuuu uu uu uuuu oooo or r r r r r r r r r r r r r r oouu ~ w vrv Lesser Black-backed Gull yr yr yr yr yr yr v yr yr Glaucous Gull x x x x yr yr ~ ° Great Black-6ackcd Gull yr yr yr r r r yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr z Caspian f'em r r o u u o o r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o r x Royal Tem x x yr v yr yr yr v Snndwieh Tem x x Common Tem r r r r r r v yr yr r r r r r r o 0 0 0 ' r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o 0 0 o r r r r r r s Tem Forster x x Least Tcm x z Bridled Tem z x Sooty Tem _..___ x x x ~. - 2 1G7 APPENDIX C -Chape l Hill Bird Club Weekl y r're quency ~.neciuisT ver, 2002.0322 Jnnuary February Mnrch Aril Mny June July Augus[ Set October Nov Dec Black Tem y r yr yr yr v yr r o 0 0 0 0 o u o r Black Skimmtr x x x Long-billed Murtelet z Rock Dove` c c c c c c c c c e c c c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Mourning Dove• c c c c c c c c c c c c cccc cccc cccc ccc c ccc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Common Ground-Dove x x Black-billed Cuckoo r r r r r r r r r r r Yellow-billed Cuckoo' r u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u o o r yr yr yr Barn Owl° yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr vt yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Eastern Screech-Owl` u u v u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u v u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Great Horned Owl" u u v u u u u u u v u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u v u u u v u u u v u u Bamcd OwI• v u u u v u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u v u u u u u u v u u u u u v u u u u u u Short-eared OwI yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v w yr yr yr v yr yr yr n N. Saw-whet Owl yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr v yr yr yr Common Nighthawk" r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u fc u o r r yr yr w Chuck-will's-widow" r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r r Whip-poor-will' r u fc fc (c fc fc fc fc (c fc fc fc fc u u u v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chimney Swiff• r fe c c c c c cc cc c c c c c c e c c c cccc c c c r Ruby-throated Hummingbird' yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr r o fe fe fc fc fc fe Ce fe fc fe fe to fe to fe (c fe fe (c k Fe u u o o r r r yr yr v yr yr yr Rufous Hummingbird yr yr yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Belted Kingfisher' u u u u u u u v u u v u u u v u u v u u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u v u u u u u u u Red-headed Woodpecker' u u u u u u v u v u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Red-bellied Woodpecker' c c c c c c e c c e c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c e t c c cc - ccec c c cc c c c c Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (c fc fe fe fc fc fe fe to fc fe fe u o r r r r o u u fe fc fc (c le fe fe fe fc Tc Downy Woodpecker* c c c c c c c c c c c c fe fe fe fe fe (c fc to fe fe fe fc fe Ce fe fe fe fe fe fe c c cc ccc c c c c c c c c c Hairy Woodpecker' u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u v u u u u v u u u u u v u u u v u v v u u u v u u u Red-cockaded W oodpecker° yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr m yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr v N. "Yellow-shafted" Flicker' c c c e c ccc c c c e fe fe fe fc fc fe fc to to fe fe fe fe to fe fe fe fe fe fc c c c c c e c c ccc c cc c c Pileatcd Woodpecker` u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u n u u u u v u v u v u v Olive-sided Flycatcher r r a v yr yr r r r r r r r r Eastern Wood-Pewee' r o fe Cc fe fe fc fc fe fc fe fe fe fe fe (c fe fc fc Cc fe fe o r r r r r r Yellow-bellied Flycatcher yr v yr yr yr v yr o r r x Acadian Flycatcher' o is fc fc fc fc (c fc fc fc u v u u o 0 0 o r r r r r Alder Flycatcher z Willow Flycatcher yr yr yr v yr yr Least Flycatcher r r r r o r r r Pacific-slope Flycatcher x x Eastern Phoebe` u u u u u u u u u u u u fe fe(c(c fe to fe fe fe fc lc(c fe fe fe to to to fe fc fe (c fc (e fe to fe (c u u u u u u u u Great Crested Flycatcher" u fe Pc fc (c fc fe fe to fe u u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 o r r Western Kingbird x Eastern Kingbird" x r o fc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c feu o r z Scissor-tailed Flycatcher x Loggcrbead Shrikc• o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White-eyed Virco• yr r u fe c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc c c c c fc fc tc u o o r r yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Dlue-headed Vireo' oor r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r z r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r a o v u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow-throated Vireo" r o u u u u v u v u u v v u u u u u u u u v u u u o x Warbling Virco• v yr yr yr yr yr yr yr z Philadelphia Vireo r r r r o 0 o r r Red-eyed Vireo' r u fc c c c c c c c ccc cc cc c c c c c c c u oor r Blue Jay c c c c c c c c c c c c cccc c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c cccc c c c c c c c c ccc c American Crow• c ccc c c c c c c c c c c e c cccc cccc c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c e c c c Fish Czow• yr yr yr y r r r o 0 0 0 o u v u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u v u u u v u o z r r r yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Common Raven x Homed L ark yr yr yr yr x yr yr yr yr vz yr v yr yr r r Pu Ie Martin" r r o o u fe e c c c c c c c c e c c c c c e c c fc u o r r Tree Swallmv r o o u c e (c fc fe fe u o r r r r r r r r r r r r r o 0 o u u u u u u o r r r r NRough-winged Swallow' r u u fe fe fc fc lc fc (c fc fe fe fc fc (c fc fc fc tc feu u oor r r r r r Bank Swallow r r r r r u u u u u o r r r r o r r r r r Clitt Swallow' r o 0 o feu o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ o o r Barn Swallow' r o u c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o r r r yr vz yr Carolina Chickadee" c ccc cccc c c c c ccc c ccc c c ccc c c c c cc c c c c cc cc c c c c c c c c c c Tufted Titmouse' c c c c cccc c c c c ccc c cc cc c ccc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Red-breasted Nuthatch o 000 0000 0000 0 o r r r r r r o 0 000 00 00 0000 While-breasted Nuthatch' fe to fe fe fe fe (c fe fc fe fc fe u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u Ce fe fe to fe fe fe fc fe (c fc fc fe fe fe fc Brown-headed Nuthatch" fe (c fc fe fe fe fc fe fe fe fc fe fe Fe fe fc fc fc (c fe Fe fe fe fe fe fe (c fe fe fe fe fc Tc lc to fe fe fe fe fe fe (c fc (c fc lc fe tc Brown Czcepcr v u u v u u u u u u u u o o r r r r o o u v u v 'u uuu u Carolina Wrcn• c ccc cccc ccc c c c c c c c cc c c cc cccc c c c c cccc c c c c cccc ccc c Bcwick's Wrcn x x x z x House Wren' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u v u o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 Winter Wren u u uu u uuu uu or r r yr v vrr r r oo uu vuuv u uuu Scdgc Wrcn yr yr yr x yr yr r r r r r r r r z r r r r r r yr yr yr yr yr Marsh Wren yr yr yr y r yr yr wr v yr yr yr r r r r z r r r r o or r r r yr yr v yr yr yr v Blue-gray 6natcatcher` r r r r r o u fc e c c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c fe fe fc u o r r r r r r r r r r r Golden-Gowned Kinglet e c cc c ccc c c fc u o r r v yr yr yr yr y r o u f c c c c c ccc c Ruby-crowned Kinglet c ccc cccc ccc e fe fc fe u o r yr r r o u fe fe c c c c c c ccc c C-3 168 Ch 1 Hill Bird Club Weekly Frequency Checklist vcr. 2002.0322 ape J anuary F ebruary March Aril M^y dune duly August Set October Nov Dec Eastem Bluebird* c 'c c c c c c e c cc c c c c e c cccc c c c c c c c c c c c e e c c c c c c c e c c c c c c Veery r r o0 0o r r o 000 0 Gmy-checked Thrush r r r r o r r o o u o r r r yr yr y r Bicknell's i7uush x Swainson's Thrash o o v u o r r r r r d v u u o r r r r o u fe 4 fc f c fe fe fc Hermit ThmsN f e tc fe fc f e (c k fc f e fc fe fc f e u o r r yr yr v r r « o u fc c c c ccc c ccc cc c c c c c c c tc u o r r r r Wood ihmsh American Robin' a a a a a a a a a a a a a c c c c c c c c ccc c c c e e c c c c c ccc c c c a a a a a a a a * r r r r r r ~o o v u fc f c fc (c fc f c fc fc fc ( c k fc fc f c fc fc fc f c fc is fc u u o o r r r r r r r r r Gmy Catbird r r r r Northern Mockingbird* c c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c c< c c c c c c cc cc cccc c ccc cc c c c c c c c c c Brown Thtashec* u u u u u u u u u f< tc fc f c fc fc fc f c fc fc fc f t fc fc fc f c fc (c fc f c fc fc tc f c fc fc fc f c fc fc fc u u u u u u u u American Pipit f c fe fc fe f e fe fe fe t c to tc fe u u o r r r x r r r r r r o u u f e fe Fe fe f e to fe fe European Starling' a a a a a a a s a s ¢ a a a c c c c ccc c c c c c c c c c c cc cc < c c a a a a a a a a a a Cedar Waxwing* c c c c c c ccc c c c c c c c f c v o 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r o 0 0 o u u fe c c c c c c c c c Blue-winged Warbler yr v yr r o 0 o r r y r r o 0 0 0 0 o r Golden-winged Warbler r r r r r r r r r r T"cnnessee Warbler yr yr yr yr r r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 Orange-crowned W arblcr yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v r r r r r o 0 o r r r yr yr yr Nashville Warbler r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r c c f c c c c c c c c c e c c c c c c fc fc fc fc u u o o yr yr yr v yr NoNrcm Pamla* r o c c Yellow Warbler v yr yr o u u a r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 o r yr yr Chestnut-sided Warbler r r r o 0 o r o o u u v o o r yr Magnolia Warbler r r r o 0 0 o r r r o u fc u o 0 o r e May Warbler Ca yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr r r r r o o r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 o r yr yr yr yr yr yr v p Black-throated Blue Warbler yr yr yr v yr yr r o fc u u r r r o u u u o 0 o r yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Y-r"Myrtle" Warhler c ccc c c e e c c e c e c c c c u r r r r r o c e c cccc c c c e Y-["Audubon's"Warbler z Green Warbler Black-thr y r m o o r r r r r o 0 0 0 o r z . Blackbumian Warbler r r r r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 o e r r Yellow-throated Warbler* yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr r u fe fc fe fe fe fc fe fc fc fe fe (c fe Ce (c ft fe u u o 0 0 0 o r r yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr yr vt Pine Warbler* c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c e cce c c c e e c e c c e e e c c c e c c c c c Prairie Warbler* x r c c c cce c c e c c c c c c c c c e o 0 0 o r Palm Warbler o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o r r r r r r o v u u v u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bay-breasted Warbler vrr r o o r r r r r r o v o r Black oll Warbler v u u u o r r r o 0 o r r yr yr Cemlcan W arblcr yr v yr yr yr r r r yr yr yr yr yr yr Black-and-white Warbtcr* r r r o u fc fc fc fc u o r r yr yr r r r r r r r u u fc (c fc u u u r r r r r r r r r r American Redstart* z yr yr y r ccc c @ u v u u u v o 0 0 0 0 o u @ c c c fc u u r r Prothonotary Wazb1cC r u fc (c fc fc fc fc fc (c fc f< fc fc (c fc fc fc fc fc fc o r r r Worm-eating Warbtcr yr v yr r o o r r r r r o 0 0 0 0 o r r r Swainson's W arbleP yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr Ovcnbird* r c c c c c c cc cc c c fc fc tc tc v u u u u u c o 0 0 Northern Watcrthrush x r r o u u u e r v yr yr o 0 o u o 0 0 Louisiana Waterthmsh" r u v u uuu uuuu v u uu ooo 0 0 ooo r r r x Kentucky Warbler" r o u u u v u u v u u o 0 0 0 0 o a o r r r r x Connecticut Warbler yr yr yr v yr yr yr Mourning Warbtcr yr n yr yr yr yr Common Ycllowthroat• o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u fc e c c c c c c c c c c c e c c c c c c c cc e u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hooded Warbtcr* r tc fe fe fe fe (c fe fe to tc to u v u u u u u u o 0 o r r Wilson's Warbler r r r r r r r r r r r yr Canada Warbler m o o r r r o 0 0 0 o o r Yellow-breasted Chat* yr yr yr v< yr yr v yr yr yr v yr r u e c c c c c c c e fe fe fe fe u v o 0 0 0 o r r r yr yr yr yr yr yr yr v Summer ranageP r o u c c c c c e c c c fe fe fe fe fe fe fe fe fe fe fe o yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr Scarlet fanager* yr yr v yr o u fe fe fe fe fc fe fe fe fc v u v u o 0 0 o u fe feu o o r r Western Tanager x x z Eastem Towhee* c c c c c ccc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c t ccc a c e c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Bachman's Spartow• yr n yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr y r yr yr yr American Tree Sparrow yr yr yr r r r v yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr v • fc fc fc f c tc fc fc f c fc (c tc f c c ccc c < c c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc cc c c c c fc fc fc f t fc fc fc fc Chipping Sparcow Clay-colored Sparrow yr rr v yr yr Field Spartow" c c cc c c c c c c cc c c c c cc c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ccc c Vesper Sparrow r r r r r r r r r r o 0 o r r r r r r r u r r r r r r r r Lazk Sparcow Savannah Sparrow fc fc Po f c fc fc fc f c fc tc fc f c fc fc fc u x o r r z r r r o u fc f c tc fc fc f c fc fc fc fc Savannah "Ipswich" Sparrow z Grasshopper Sp¢mow• xx r r r r 00 0000 0000 000 o oooo r r r r r r Hcnslow's Sparrow x Nelson's? S-t Spartow x x x Fox Sparrow u u u u u v u v o o r r r r r o u u u u u u u ' c c c c ccc ccc c c c fc u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u v u u u u u fc c c c cc ccc c Song 5 arrow c Lincoln's Spartow yr yr yr v yr yr yr v yr yr yr c r r yr yr yr r r r o o r r r v yr yr yr v Swamp Spartow c c c c c c c c c c c c fc fc fc u u r r u fc c c c c c c c c c c White-throated Sparrow a a a a a a aa a a a a c c c c fc u o r r r u tc c c a s ^ a a a a a White-crowned Sparrow o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harris's Spartow x -~_ C-4 rti.....,t u:n n:ra clrrh tAlcckly Fromtenr-v Checklist vet. 2002.1~~~ January February March Aril Mny June July August Sat October Nov Dec D-e "Slate-colored" !unto a s aa a a a a a a c c fc u o r r o u fc c a a a a a a a a Dark-eyed "Oregon" Junco x D-e "Pink-sided" Junco x Lapland Longspur x ° yr yr Smith's Longs ur x Snow Bunting yr yr yr yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Northern Cardinal' c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Rose-brcasled Grosbeak r o v u o r o u u u o r r yr yr Blue Grosbcak« yr yr yr yr yr v yr r u c c c c c e c c c ccc c fc to fe is fe fc fe fe fc u o r yr yr yr v yr yr yr v Indigo bunting' yr yr v yr r u c c c cc c ccc c c c c c c c c c c c c fc u o r Dickcisscl' x yr yr yr yr yr yr wr yr yr yr x Bobolink u c fco r x r o 0 0 0 0 o r r Red-winged Blackbird' a a a a a a a a a s a a c c c c cc c c c c c c ccc c eccc cc cc c c c c a a a a a a a s « f f f f fe fe R ( fe fe fe fe fe (c fe fc fe to fe fe fe fc fe fc fc to fc fe fe fe fc fe fe fe fe fe fe fe fc fe fe fc fe fc Eastern Meadowlark fe to fe fe c c e e c Yellow-headed Blackbird x x Rusty Blackbird u u u u u u u u v u u u o o a o o r r r o u u u u u u Breweds Blackbird yr yr yr yr yr v x yr yr v yr yr yr Common Gmekle" c e c c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c ccc c c c c c c c c c c c c c ccc c c e c c c c c Brown-headed Cowbirct" fc fc (c fc fc fc fc (c fc fc fc fc c c c c c c c c c c c c fa fc fc fc fc fc tc fc fc fc fc fc fc (c tc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc Orchard Oriole' yr yr r u u u u u u u u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r Baltimore Oriole r r r r r r r r r o u o r yr v yr yr r o u u o 0 o r r r r r r r r r r r Pine Grosbeak x o r r x r r r o 0 0 0 o u u u fe fc fc Purple Finch u u u u u u u v u u u u u u o House Finch" c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c eccc cc c c c c c c e c e e c c c c Red Crossbill yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr x x x x White-winged Crossbill x x Common Redpoll yr yr yr v yr yr yr yr yr Pine Siskin u u u u n u u u u u u u u v o 0 o r r r r r r o o u u u u u u u American Goldfinch' c ccc cc cc c c c c ccc c c c cc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c cc c c c c c c c c Evening Grosbcak u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u o o r r r yr yr v yr yr yr v r o o u u u u u ' c c c c c c e c c c c e c c c c c c c e c c c c c c c e ccc c e c c c c c e c c e c c c c e c _ Ouse partow spec es. Sightings from 1975-3/?002 from Chatham, Uurham, and Orange Counties, NC, plus areas of Falls Gake in Granvi(!e and IVake Counties 32 Compiled by IPiI(Caok (nvrookQdukeedu) from sightings published in The Chut and The Bulletin (CHBC) and posted on Carolinabirds code count treq count nvg description abundant a I00% >S00 always present and easy to find in large nurdbcrs "breeding species c 90-100% 50-500 always present and easy to End in appropriate habitat ° suspected breeding sp common fairly common tc 75-I00% 20-50 usually present and seen most days in appropriate habitat uncommon u 50-100% 5-20 usually present but not seen most days occasional 0 25-75 % 1-S usually present but not seen most weeks rare r 10-50% <I may be present bu[ not detected most years very mre yr 5-10°/ <t not present most years accidental x <5% Q 6 i five or (ewer reports in 25 years/temporally isolated reports (C C 170 171 Y o ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 0 o _ 0 0 0 ~ o 0 m o 0 0 0 - 0 0 U U U U o U U U U a o U U U U ~ m ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ v m m m m m m m ~ ~ m m m m ` w m m m m m ~ m m m m m m ~ ro m m m O O O O = O O O O U U U U O O O O O of z ~ m r~ _ m m m m m m ~ m m rn m m m ~ Q (~ Q U Q Q Q U (~ U U m Q Q Q Q m v v <t o m m N ~ ~ n ~t n ~ ~ o o N o N ~ N m m N o M N N ti m m N N N h m n m r I~ ~ h r r r r h r h r N r N h N h N h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m 2 Z N W ~ Q Q ~ ~ D Q Q 2 Z Q ¢ O N Z F 2 CL Q O D '~ J Q m O O Q 2 U J O Z m W m U Q Q Z O O W 3 ~ LL o i W r w c .7 Y z v i O v i y a J ~ z Y Y Z Z W Z W W J Q V' W Z U U Q m Q Z m O F- l ' J ~ 2 J U J G > > 2 O Z ¢ ¢ O J W O 4 CS - U Q O U a W U - ~ Z cp U b m m m O D m m ~ O O N O O m m m f~J m N N O m N ^ r d' (~l ^ V m N C V O m m N N O ~ (mD ~ ,~ ~. m N \ ^ W (j () U U G U U .J J J J J J J J J J J J J J r_ U U U U Cl (_ (J _~! ~ m m A ~ ro m m m Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ~ Q1 d N d N N d d d O m U m m m v U v t6 °1 v w U U i U a U U U a a a U ~ a ' „ ~ U U i c i 3 d ~ ~ ~ ~ o ._ .5 ~ o W c p ~ T c ~ o a z S' ° ¢ v ~ 8 v v v i ~ m z o ~ m 3 U z $ . E ® m m N m v n m m m m cn r a m N ~ ~ M o ~ h m m o v N o m °v ~ cmv ~ m m } y y ~ n NV m ~ ~ V m N V N O ^ ^ n m N O N ~ ~ n` M a+ m O h m m n t`'l O C N M ~ N C N m N m O N O (7 m m m f7 f~ m N <t I~ ~ V ~ • 1•J W O m h h I~ m m N m m h m i~ N n m m m rn m m m m m m m m m m o rn m rn m Q m m ¢ u. ¢ U a M m M m LL ~' V r N CJ- m it1 ~ N m t- ~ . t7 m f7 m O C V l V O O O (") 01 t7 'Q O ~ ® ~ N a V m m ~f1 ~I N m V i F .- .= ui v v vi ei co r ~ r ~ n i6 ~ co v a ~ v m a m m n m m o ~ e ~ ~ ~ o .- N ~ h °o IN ti O n a 172 a ;o IN V 'C! •y A U m ~' ro O .~ U m ~' m O ~ U m ~' ro O ~ U m ~' m O .d U m ~' ro O .b U m cO1 m O ~ U m ~' ro O .'~ U m ~ m O 2 ~ a L U = m a L U = m n t U S m n .% U o o a `m U .~ > U rn c ro O ~ > (01 m c `° O o o ~ ro U a o 'O `m U .~ ~ V rn c ro O ~' > U rn c m O .u > U m c ro O .~ U m c m O ',, 4 I l d ~ m z ~ y y a m m 4 m ~n Q m m Q rn ~ ¢ h m Q o it ¢ ~ U ~` U ~ U .4` U .- fo ~ m N m ~ m (O ~ n m ,'~-` U ~ U m m Q m v> 6 m m Q N n N h N o i~ 1~ N m ~ h N v m h N mh N h N m N h N ~ N h N m N h N v ~[J h N v m h N a m h N v m h N m N h N m N h N n N h N o m n N o m h N m N h N NO M h N mo ~ N m m h N y \ ~ o < Z ~ h ~ Q U a = ~ 2 m S J g v W ¢ cs w ~ d N m C7 ^ m Y 3 2 ^ R ~,,, v Z ¢ > a O m ¢ ~ z Y Q u~. ¢ ^ w U ¢ ^ W w Q ~ t~i_ w J W ~ LL ^ O m m Z m m Z w J W ~ LL ^ O Z ~ ^ ~ m ^ O O z ~ "S Z m O h O ^ Z LL ~ W ~ ~ Q m O ~ V O ~ m O N h ~ o O ! N m V N m o O O .- O o O O O O o O N 'C m m N m O M o V <t 0 N 1n o O ~ K tN O U U n L ~ J U J w ~ O F ~ m m J ~ ~ Q m m U ~ t> m z C ~ U C ~ E o °m M y a a m ~ w ~ w m U m a m ~ ~ U O m W o m 'n. ~ ~ m > ~ ~ ^ J G ~ Q N N m ~ 2 U O O ~ m U o ~ ~- U C _j O ~ ti m ~ ^ Y m n U N Z m m N m m 3 1~- ¢ o m a m 2 ti a m M m V h M ~ m m N h m N r O m o a o M m m m r m m m M N O m m h m m h m M m O Vm m m rn ~ a ~(l N m W m m M m M ~ m m O m o 01 M ~ m m m m v h m N m m m m o m N m N ~ h m N m m m O> N ~ h m O M m m N h rn h a m M M O O) ~ m m `a h m m r m m V m o M M h ~ m m O m N m O m ~ m 01 h m m m m mm^ n rn m a m m < MD m m N m N m ~ y N m m h m a m m m OMi m m m O m m h m m i`,Q 0 a !w C ~V m V r I~ N u] A ~ ~ N ~ N M t~ ~ Oi r m m N N ~ m m W ~ LL r O N N N m aI M 'C N C I~ m Q f~ N n "' Q d~ uJ h N ~D m I~ m M ~ O r N N ~ d; ? ~ U Oi 'a d' r y: ~ 1~ N J o] ~? h ~ U (V ~ a N N ~ c~ .- ~ N N w ~ V ~ h o i.'~n I'. H ,.:: ~ i; q ',~ ~ m O N N N fV M N d' N m N m N h N m N OI N O M M N M M M 'C M m M m M h M m M OI M ~ : b ,~~q 173 H N m a O m F+ F 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ t t o _ _ _ _ v U ci U v U v U v U 'o o v=_ _ 'x ~ 'x i U d m m m m m v m m m m m m m m rn w m m m m m m o `o w m d m m d m m ro m m m m m m m m ~ `? m t ~ t ,~ m = s ~ O O O O O O O O O O S = O U U U U O U U O m °o o °o °0 0 0 0 t+l N f7 to .= ~ N 4 Q Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Z S 'm m a a m m L L U U .y'' y Z Z 2.` ~' U U > > U U ~ ~ U U m m m N m m N m m m m N V' a m m m V m 0 o n n cn n n n n o M h n ^ r N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m N F A n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ^ ~ ~ Q Q ^ Y ^ L!1 ~ J Q ¢ y ¢ ¢ U J ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ^ Y ~ p ~' ~ fW ~ Z 3 ~ ~ p m Z Cii Ci LL ~ W w 3 3 = w Gi n Y i i O a U ~ Z ~ rc rn Y ~ o u`Ti ~ ~ ^ _ ~ 3 ^ ^ ~ n z ~ z m m Z ¢ ~ ~ z z z O ~ u¢. z i ~ Q o ~ a ~ ~ U U ~ t¢i OZ = a n m m m m o rn_ m m a m ~> m O ~' o m o o O m o o N N O N Vrn' r ~ ~ rn N ~ m m ~ Q N N Np N (~ (.) ~ U U ~ C) U J J J J ..~ J .1 .l J N0 J J N J -~ U U V U V V U (_ _ _ _ _ m m m m m m o >• o m m m m N w in w 1- °' ~- fn m m m v v 3 v v ~ w o °a ~ v U F3 °' 3 ~" 3 ~i m m `m ~ ~ w c 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ~ U Z U Q U U Q O Q ~ Q Z U U N rn O O rn N n O m O N O a V N N m m a m O m d' rn rn m O N O N O O O O m m n m '. n m W rn rn m O ~fl N V m m m m m O O n N N '? rn O V O m rn N m m N m m n m m rn rn m n N O V N m ~ ~ m m m m V o V V t rn rn (O N m m m m m N d' m V' < m O m m rn rn N N m rn rn N N m m m rn N N V m m m m n rn O O a m n m m m m in m m m n m m m ~n m m m rn m rn m m m m m rn m m m rn rn rn m m m m rn m ¢ ^ ^ ~ r N m ¢ ~ N ~ [~ m ~ (~ O~ Y m m Q N in c~ N m m r '~ N N [L ~ t0 pj ~ r W uj Qj m O O (7 ~'> N cV mm N N Oi ~ N ~ ~- ~ m m n n V V N t0 id m ~ ~ ui v .- c~i ~ r o a cJ n n ~ n c6 n ~ ~i o N m v ~n m n m m o N m a in m n m m o e v c v v a c v v a o in ~n .n u> ~n ~n v> ~n m m a a v n !W p. o o iN 1 I,,n ;n v 1'74 V U U U U U m m m ~ m m m m m m ro m ro ro m O O ~ O O O O L d r 2 H N N N N N N N N 0 Y _ D Q 0 ~ J_ ~` W J ~ ¢ Q !/J W y J_ ~S 0 r W N W Z ~ 0 W Q O W aYa J °¢ W W U J J ~ m C m nm m V N N < J J m Z N d N o n v m m m 0 o m m m a m m n o m N o m ° m m c v m ~ o m m ~ m m m m m o rn rn m m m d F Q r ~ W ~ N ~ m N N N ~r ~ > K r u> lM tV m N tV lp lND (mD N b 1m0 fn0 >,o 4N 1':n iti O C b ~v APPENDIX E -Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder List STAKEHOLDER t_IST Tower Companies Crown Castle Atlantic, LLC Joey Greene, Site Acquisition Specialist 150 Dominion Drive Rosemary Corbin Suite A Morrisville, NC 27560 (919) 465-3504 Pyramid Site Acquisition Services Jason Manniello, Site Acquisition Agent 4116 Redington Drive Chris Jablonski, Zoning Specialist Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 781-7216 SBA, Inc, Annette Montgomery, Property Specialist 401 Rogers View Court Suite 109 Raleigh, NC 27610 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. Wendy Otis 400 Regency Forest Drive Suite 300 Cary, NC 27511 (919) 465-6463 American Tower Bill Howard -Huntersville 13801 Reese Boulevard West David Parker- Eastern NC Suite 350 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704) 947-7190 or (252) 561-7954 Gearon Communications Carolyn .1. Briggs-Zoning Manager 3016 Hillsborough Street Suite 201 Raleigh, NC 27607 KCI Tower Systems 387 Cornelius Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 732-1174 175 G:Tking/TowerStakehoiders Li' _ 1 176Wireless Service Providers APPENDIX E -Telecommunication Tower Stakeholder Dist GTE Wireless Scott B. Smith-Property Management 6501 Weston Parkway Suite 100 Cary, NC 27513 (919) 481-6407 Sprint PCS 1357 Hembree Road Suite 100 Roswell, GA 30076 (770) 772-2072 Southern Bell Ms. Daniels Forecast Office Room 413 5715 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 Nextel Communications 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600 Cary, NC 27511 (919) 461-2100 Attornevs for lower Companies Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP Robert C. Ekstrand Attorneys at Law Gray Styers 3737 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27612-5515 (919) 788-1856 Lynch &Eatman Jerry Eatman P..O. Box 30515 Raleigh, NC 27622-0515 (919)571-3332 Market Lead Attorney-Leasing Leslee Ruth Sharp 14001 Weston Parkway Suite 106A Cary, NC 27513 (919) 465-4905 G:TkingfrowerSlakehoiders E - Z APPENDIX;r;- letecommumcanon tower~iatceuvauCa i,aaa Consultants Pronet, Inc. 3200 Glen Royal Road Suite 102 Raleigh, NC 27612 (919) 781-7711, ext. 1'16 Randy Currin (919) 523-8437 Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. P.O, Box 18846 Greensboro, NC 27419-8846 (336) 668-0093 working with Monroe Telecom (518) 477-8000 The Win Group 12425 Angel Oak Drive Huntersville, NC 28078 (704) 905-8951 Other Agencies of Interest Duke Communications Services 400 South Tryon Street Mail Code WC29H Charlotte, NC 28201 Orange County EMS Orange County Purchasing Dept,. G:TkingRowerStakehoiders Dick. Starling J.M, (Mickey) Williams Rusty Monroe Tim Leonard Jeff Riggins Nick Waters Pam Jones E•-3 177 178 179 APPENDIX F -Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies Administrative Policy: Telecommunication. To-per. ~ This policy describes the manner in which administrative determinations are made regazding whether or not a proposed telecommunication facility can be considered an accessory use. REGULATORY CONTEXT Several definitions contained in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance are important in determining the process by which a proposed telecommunication facility should be reviewed. These include: Radio or Television Transmitting and/or Receiving Facilit :The use of land, buildings, or structures for the above-ground transmrssron and/or reception of airborne radio or television signals, including all transmitting and receiving towers, dishes and antennas except accessory radio or television transmitting and/or receiving antennas. Accessorv Radio or Television Transmitting and/or Receiving Antenna: An antenna designed for the above-ground transmrssron and/or reception of arrbome radio or television signals, customarily incidental to a permitted principal use, provided that any antenna located on a zoning lot containing asingle-family or two-family dwelling shall serve only the needs of the occupants of such dwellings. Accessorv Use: Customarily incidental to a permitted principal or special use. A "Radio or television transmitting and/or receiving facility" is permitted only as a special use, and only in the following zoning districts: Community Commercial, Office Institutional-1, -2, and -.3, and Industrial. A facility of this description is also permitted as either a principal or accessory use in a planned development. Land azea requirements are such that a tower needs to be set back from all exterior property lines at least as far as the tower is tall. Special Use Permits aze approved by the Town Council. ~. l APPENDIX F -Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies Igo An accessory use is permitted anywhere, provided that it is "customarily incidental" to a permitted principal use. An accessory use can be approved by the Town Manager. Accessory antennas are subject to setback azld height restrictions which create a "building envelope" with the following exceptions: "The following features may project above the building envelope defined by the maximum height limitations and additional setback requirements contained in Subsection 13..9.11 provided the Town Manager shall determine that such features do not significantly impair the degree of'solar access provided adjacent properties through application of the appropriate solar setback requirements. a. Chimneys, accessory radio or television antennas, flagpoles, monuments, or solar collectors, provided the projection of'such structures above the building envelope does not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the maximum height limitation that defines the portion of the building envelope penetrated by such structures, ..." F'or property encumbered by a Special Use Permit, the Development Ordinance specifies what maybe approved as a minor change by the staff' and those changes which require Council consideration as a Modification of Special Use Permit. In addition, the terms of the Permit may further restrict tkre use of the property. Design commission approval may be required for some accessory antemra additions. No other standards for appearance are provided in the Development Ordinance. GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING "ACCESSORY" Since adoption of a 1997 Development Ordinance text amendment, installation of telecommunication facilities (including antennas and panels) on top of existing buildings or towers is allowed as an "accessory use." The Town of Chapel Hill in 1997 deemed such arrangements, and the co-location of'telecommunication facilities in general, to be a desirable alternative to construction of new free-standing towers. The Town Manager shall use the following guidelines in determining whether a proposed telecommunications facility can be considered an accessory use. Accessory: hr order to be considered an accessory use, a telecormmunication facility must first be clearly urcidental and subordinate to the main use of a site. It cannot be of a type or nature that dominates the site, visually, azchitecturally, or in terms of"overall massing. The following types of facilities, antennas, and panels are of a type that maybe considered to be accessory uses. ®2 APPENDIX r -Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies 181 On Rooftops. Antennas, utility rooms, and panels can be placed on top of existing buildings as ui accessory use if the scale is small in compazison to the building, and the facilities are not visually obtrusive. In addition, the 15% limit above the building envelope, noted above, must be respected, Acceptable examples of accessory uses on rooftops follow: 2. On Light Poles. Existing light poles, for example those holding parking lot lamps or lights for athletic facilities, can be used for telecommunication facilities, For these telecommunication facilities to be considered accessory uses, they must not dominate the light pole in appearance, nor contain elements that extend vertically outward from the pole greater than ten feet. There should be no more than six panels mounted on a pole. The size, dimensions, and texture of poles containing telecommunication facilities should not differ greatly from nearby light poles.. Further, the antennas may not exceed 15% of the maximum height limit for the building envelope. Acceptable examples of accessory uses on light poles follow: ~a3 Acceptable as Accessory Use Acceptable as Accessory Use Acceptable as Accessory Use Acceptable as Accessory Use 18~ APPENDIX I' -Town of Chapel Hill Telecommnnication Policies 3, On Transmission Towers. Antennas and panels can be mounted on existing transmission poles and considered to be accessory uses, if the telecommunication facilities do not significantly alter the appeazance of'the towers. Further, the antennas may not exceed I S% of the maximum height limit for the building envelope. Acceptable examples of accessory uses on transmission towers follow: 4. Hidden Facilities. Any telecommunication facility that is completely hidden from exterior view can be considered an accessory use. Examples could include facilities within buildings or church towers. Not Accessory: Facilities that create a dominant visual feature, separate and distinct from the principal use of a site, camiot be considered accessory uses, Facilities on light poles that would include more than six panels, or that would have horizontal elements that extend more than ten feet beyond the pole itself could not be considered to be accessory uses. Examples of facilities that should not be considered accessory uses follow: «4 Acceptable as Accessory Use Acceptable as Accessory Use Not Acceptable as Accessory Use Not Acceptable as Accessory Use APPENDIX F -Town of Chapel Hill Telecommunication Policies 1-8`3 NEW TECHNOLOGIES As new telecommunication technologies develop, it is possible that an approach to facility location that has not been described above may prove acceptable as an accessory use. Additional approaches to the definition of accessary use maybe added to this administrative policy at the direction of the Town Council. Pi°epared by Chapel Hill Plan~aing Departnserzt Novei~aber, 1999 ~° 5 184 185 APPROVED 0 811 912 0 0 3 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA May 27, 2003 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr ,Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield and members Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Noah Ranells, and Ted Triebel PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and members Jay Bryan, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, and Maria Tadd NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE A. 1. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Brown said that Commissioner Carey could not be in attendance, She stated the reasons for the public hearing. There are two school items and three planning items. A. 2. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. B. SCHOOLS ITEM 1. Proposed Third Nigh School In The Chapel bill-Carrboro Schools System John Link gave a summary of the major elements of the process that they have gone through in looking at providing high school space for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system (CHCCS).. In spring of 2001, the Capital Needs Task Force made recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners that there was a need for two elementary schools in the CHCCS. One school is being built at Meadowmont and the other one is Elementary School #10. Since that time and since the voters approved the bonds in 2001, the CHCCS board has identified alternatives for high school space. The school board is proposing the site at Rock Haven Road. Because the voters did vote on funding for elementary schools with the bonds, then this public hearing is to hear comments on transferring the $12.8 million from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. He said that the County staff looks at it as 186 an entire package and how to finance as many schools and address the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as efficiently as possible and stay within the County's debt requirements. There are five elements in considering this proposal, as follows: 1. There is need for additional high school space based on projections of future student membership 2. Comparison of CHCCS High School #3 scenarios 3.. April 24, 2003 CHCCS presentation on funding High School #3 4. Unfunded County and Schools capital needs for 2003-2013 5. Constraints on County borrowing Budget Director Donna Dean explained why there is a need for a third high school based on student projections. According to projections, by 2004-2005, the district will surpass the 11U% level of service. The addition of the 1,000-student high school that CHCCS has proposed is reflected in 2U06-2UU7, which will bring the number of available seats to 4,035 with a level of service at 4,439,. Assistant County Manager Rod Visser spoke about the Rock Haven Road site and compared it to the Orange County school construction standard model. The Board of County Commissioners is basing its funding decisions on this model. He said that the County Commissioners adopted school construction standards in 1999 for high schools. This occurred following a recommendation from a task force comprised of representatives of ttre County Commissioners and the two school boards. The total square foot range for a 1,000-student high school is from 151,000-182,000 square feet. The bottom line cost ranges from $24.7-29.9 million. The total price tag for this site is $33.8 million. The school system is contemplating an off-site athletic facility, which would be an additional $660,000. Donna Dean spoke about moving the bond funds from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. The total funding from the original scenario was $27..8 million. The CHCCS is recommending that the County consider borrowing an additional $6 million for High School #3. John Link said that the County also has other unfunded needs that it must fund - Elementary School #10, a new central office for the CHCCS, renovations at Hillsborough Elementary School (Orange County Schools), a new animal shelter, renovations at the Northern Human Services Center, and the 9-1-1 communications plan. The Board of County Commissioners indicated that at some point during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the County would not be able to address these unfunded projects without making some hard decisions,. Rod Visser spoke about the County's debt capacity. The County Commissioners' approved debt rnanagernent policy from May 1998 states that the County will strive to spend no more than 15% of its general fund expenditures in any given year to retire debt on previously issued bonds, alternative financing, etc. Orange County has an excellent bond rating. This benefits all taxpayers.. He said that the additional $6 million would not cause the County's projected expenditures to go above the 15% level. However, with all of the additional unfunded needs, including the additional $6 million for the Rock Haven proposal as submitted by the CHCCS Board, it becomes a problem,. 187 John Link said that in summary the staff recommends that the County Commissioners begin making decisions as part of the 2003-2004 budget deliberations, which will start on June 10'". Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an unusual circumstance because we do not usually change one bond and put it into another use. He said that this is an opportunity for people who might live proximate to the proposed site of the high school to make comments on how the school might affect their neighborhood, He said that there is no process at this time that formally includes this opportunity for citizens to address school siting, Commissioner Gordon wanted to make it clear that the "County Funding Scenario" is from the Orange County staff and their recommendation is approximately $27.8 million for this project, She said that the difference of the proposal from the standards is $4 million and the difference from the County's proposal $6 million, Chair Brown asked about the funding difference between the $27,8 million and the proposal from the school system and when the (apse occurred. Rod Visser said that the main consideration is that the site acquisition is much higher than the standards.. Donna Dean said that site development and site acquisition were the areas that affect the cost the most. Chair Brown asked what it is about this site that would make the site development cost so much. Rod Visser said that the topography is not very level and there are large amounts of rock that may become a problem. Chair Brown asked for a comment on the land acquisition. The high school standards allow for $1,5 million for the purchase of land. Jahn Link said that there is a possibility that one of the sellers may not be willing to sell, which may require execution of imminent domain. Chair Brown asked for an explanation of pay-as-you-go funds. Rod Visser said that it is basically a stream of revenue that is received on an ongoing basis. This money is earmarked for either school or County capital projects, The main source of pay-as-you-go funding in the County is revenue that comes from the first two Y~ cent sales taxes that were levied. Chair Brown asked about pay-as-you-go funding for schools and how it could be used. Rod Visser said that this money goes for lohg-range capital needs, The biggest ticket item is construction of new schools. It can also go for debt financing, retiring bonds, and renovations. Public Comment Terri Tyson is a mother of four children (triplets plus one) who will be entering high school within the next five years. She asked the Board of County Commissioners to build a third high school as soon as possible. She said that the Rock Haven Road site is clearly the best that has been identified. She is an immediate neighbor of East Chapel Hill High School.. She feels it is very important that the next high school be built in the southern part of the district.. She does not want her children or anyone else's to attend an overcrowded school. She said that if a smaller high school is built, the cost per seat will be much higher and capacity will be exceeded sooner. She asked for full funding for the third high school. 188 Joseph Burgo lives in Southern Village in Chapel Hill and asked the County Commissioners to reallocate funding from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. He supports siting the high school on Rock Haven Road.. He said that if the high school were not sited in the south, then all of the students in the south would be bussed to the north,. Rolf Glover said that his family is the owner of the 50 acres, which is the largest parcel that comprises the Rock Haven Road site. He said that irr the middle of last year, they signed a contract to sell this land to a developer for $3 million, and the school board appraised it for $1.6 million. The contract was terminated when the school board voted to seek the County Commissioners' permission to acquire the land under the rationale ttrat the developer could not recoup their costs of trying to get a zoning change if the land was condemned. It is his family's feeling that the $3 million value is the true value of this land. He said that the school board based their value on an appraisal that they had done and his family feels that this appraisal is seriously flawed., He said that the appraisal uses three comparable purchases, all of which are located around the Eubanks Road site. He said that the school board is basing their appraisal on the notion that their land is not suited for ahigh-density development. He said that a high school is a very high-density development. For these reasons, they feel that this land is worth about $3 rnilliorr and they intend to do whatever they can to get this amount for the land. Marty Mandel is a resident of Carrboro and she is opposed to the Rock Haven site. She said that this site will teach students that it is okay to condemn land and take it for a new high school that would run possibly millions over budget, that it is okay to cut trees and level land for hundreds of new parking places that add more traffic and more exhaust, and that it is okay to build a school site on an area that is partly in the watershed. She is a former teacher and she finds this position unconscionable and unethical. She thinks that the two existing high schools should be expanded on a temporary basis for the proposed new students, and the Lincoln Center should be considered. She said that the CHCCS Board should absolutely be required to stay within budget. She said that before choosing a new site for a high school, the school board and the County should study future school needs that include the northern transition areas and the possibility of merger with the Orange County Schools,. She said that existing schools needed improved and repaired.. She would like to have all schools pedestrian and bicycle accessible. She said that public transportation should be of primary focus,. Kathy Tawney was representing an endorsement by the Mary Scroggs Elementary School Parent Advisory Committee. She read a prepared statement. This committee strongly supports the decision to locate the third high school in the southern part of the district as recommended by the CHCCS district and the Board of Education.. She said that putting the hig}r school in the part of the district where it is needed and cutting down on travel risks for the children, transportation costs, and environmental impact seems to outweigh the immediate short-term expense involved in purchasing this site.. She asked if there was any discussion about a type of urban school and the new neo-traditional high schools that she has heard at the Town Council meetings. Also, she would like the County Commissioners to recognize that there was discussion about increasing development in the southern part of the district if the school is not there. The land that is designated as a possible site will be used for development. This is another stress added to the need for a high school. She made reference to the comment about condemning land and being an example. She said that land was condemned to build higtrways towards Pittsboro recently. She does not think that this request is a bad example since the Town has already done it. She reinforced the 189 commitment for physical activity. She said that by putting children on school buses, their time is limited to be physically active. Etta Pisano asked the County Commissioners to fund the site as requested by the CHCCS Board on the Rock Haven Road site., She said that this would save lots of time and cars and would help the environment. She said that it is the strong feeling in the community that the school should be big enough to serve the needs beyond atwo-year limit, She said that the money should be moved from Elementary School #10 to High School #3 because they made a mistake when they voted for the bond and they should have voted for a high school instead of an elementary school, She pointed out that the Orange County 1999 construction standards were not realistic. She said that these standards were exceeded at Cedar Ridge.. She said that this is a tough job for the County Commissioners, but that they should be able to find the money. She does not understand why it costs $425,000 to plan an animal shelter and another $2 million to build it. She said that she is willing to have her taxes raised.. She thinks the Manager's recommended budget is conservative, She also thinks that the debt limit could be raised to avoid cutting services.. Michael Kelly is a citizen of Chapel Hill. He said that he will not be sending his children to this school, but the CHCCS Board has made a clear and compelling argument to have the third high school in the southern part of the county. He said that the two existing high schools could not be expanded without compromising the quality of education that is delivered. The population of Chapel HiII and Orange County supported bonds for educational needs and this is one of them. He pointed out that the most responsible way of decreasing the needs for transportation for a high school is to place the high school closest to the students. He made reference to the graph on the debt limit and asked if it included all debt or only debt that was currently due. Rod Visser said that the $113 million that he referred to is phased in over asix-year period, through 2007-2008. Matthew Barton said that he was once on a bond committee and it was made clear to them that the financing for educational needs would not be met by that one bond. He tried to estimate how much extra mileage would be driven if the school were to be sited on Eubanks Road as opposed to Rock Haven Road. He distributed the handout with the estimate to the County Commissioners. Using an approximation of 3.5 extra miles each way to get to the Eubanks Road site, the estimate was 714,000 miles of extra driving in the year. He estimated that 600 students would be riding the bus out of the 1,000. The estimated cost of the extra mileage would be $176,000 per year. He spoke in favor of the Rock Haven Road site and asked the County Commissioners to approve the proposal by the CHCCS Board. Judy Margolis submitted a petition of over 500 people to support the purchase of the Rock Haven Road site for the third high school. She read the petition.. The petition asks the County Commissioners to vote to fully fund the Rock Haven Road site. She said that she has been on the Eubanks Road school/park site and that there is not room there to build a high school because it is steep, rocky, and is broken up by stream buffers., There would be substantial site development costs including water and sewer. She made reference to the Glover land estimate of $3 million and said that this was based on this land being rezoned by Carrboro. She said that she has heard that Carrboro had no intention of rezoning this land, so it changes the value of this land. She read some comments off of the petition and said that people are very passionate about this.. Bobby Clapp said that it seems to him that there are three variables -timing, facilities and location. The longer we wait on the location, the more overcrowded the current high schools 190 are going to get and the longer we wring our hands over facilities, the less likely we are to get a good location. He thinks that there is some urgency to address the proposal. He is a parent of three children in the CHCCS. He has no objections to shifting the bond money. He thinks that the school should be funded at the level requested. He said that he is disappointed that the Rock Haven site does not have the land capacity for the facilities that should be attached to a high school, but he thinks we should move forward in a cooperative manner. He said that he is concerned as this goes forward that the Board of County Commissioners and the school board work in a partnership. He hopes that this does not become a merger issue, He thinks the issue at hand is the immediate need to plan for short-term spaces and high school spaces for' the CHCCS. Cynthia Wheaton lives in southern Orange County and has two children in the fourth and sixth grade. She has been following this issue for about a year and a half. She fully supports the school board's recommendation fora 1,000-student capacity high school on Rock Haven Road., She made reference to the budget comparisons that the staff showed earlier, She made reference to the "total estimated cost" and she is concerned that on the "land" line on the Eubanks Road site there is a zero. She understands that this land has been purchased, but she thinks that to put a zero there causes confusion in comparing the overall cost. She said that this is a personal issue for her because of the extra mileage if her children went to Chapel Hill Nigh School, She said that she also represents people that could not be at the meeting tonight, She said that these families are going to benefit from a site on Rock Haven Road because their children will get to spend more time at home. She supports moving the money from Elementary School #10 to High School #3. Terence Long spoke in support of locating the third high school in the southern part of the district. He concentrated on the issue of safety and teenage driving. He quoted the statistic that every year there ar'e approximately two million driving accidents involving teenagers resulting in 6,000 deaths. Drivers between the ages of 16-19 years old have the highest crash rate relative to all other age groups, including the elderly.. He quoted several other statistics about teenage driving., He said that placing a high school away from where the students are located would add to the number' of miles that inexperienced drivers would drive. Jim Ross made reference to the zero line item for the acquisition costs for the Eubanks Road site.. He said that if the high school is built on Rock Haven then the County could sell the Eubanks Road site or use it for' some other purpose. He asked that this be accounted for in the cost structure as a real cost for the Eubanks Road site. He said that there are amortization costs -bus costs, insurance, gas, and asked if this has been figured into the bar graph. He said that the existing contract has been dropped on Rock Haven Road, but it was going to be a 264 multi-family unit building with 850 parking spaces and 500,000 square feet of impervious surface. He said that he would never pick the Eubanks Road site for a high school because it is in the wrong place. He said that the County only wants to use it because it owns the land. Karen Kingsholver asked if the elected officials were aware how many of the citizens in the south end of town feel strongly about having a high school located in this area.. They know that the Rock Haven Road site is their last resort. She urged the County Commissioners to consider this site. Deborah Love said that she supports the Rock Haven Road site.. She said that her' child would be out of school by the time this will be built. She has to drive 45 minutes round trip 191 to take her child to school. She agrees that kids should be traveling to schools by foot or bike or public transportation and this is not available with the Eubanks Road site. She expressed appreciation to the school board and administration for the way in which they have involved the community in this decision. Commissioner Gordon entered into the record a letter from Chapel Hill High School Governance Committee, which urges the Board of Commissioners to support the Rock Haven Road site as proposed by the CHCCS Board. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -Chaired By Planning Board Vice Chair Hunter Schofield 1, Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Amend Articles 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, and Table of Contents and other related articles to define and regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with permitted activity.. Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. The first item has to do with enabling legislation to be able to restrict open burning when it has to do with development activity. Types of development that could be regulated include major and minor subdivisions, zoning compliance for building permits, and land disturbing activities requiring Erosion Control approvals, Development not regulated includes activities relating to bona fide farms, approved forestry management plans, and burning of domestically produced yard debris by private homeowners/tenants. Commissioner Jacobs asked County Attorney Geof Gledhill about the definition of bona fide farm and if it was the same definition that the State uses or if there was some leeway. Geof Gledhill said that the enabling legislation has a definition for bona fide farms. The special legislation that Orange County received to allow it to regulate open burning in the permitting of developments includes things that are not in the definition of bona fide farms such as horticulture and silviculture. Counties do not have the flexibility to redefine the terms Commissioner Jacobs asked about the way in which the references to the burning and the disposition of construction debris are mentioned. He asked why we would not mention that there is a recyclable materials recovery ordinance each time we mention construction debris, because it regulates how the debris is supposed to be disposed of, Craig Benedict said that he would work with Geof Gledhill to see if it can be incorporated, He said that this is for land use and not solid waste and he will try and cross-reference this. Chair Brown said that she is unclear about bona fide farms and if it has anything to do with the tax valuation of property and Geof Gledhill said no. He said that the definition of use value taxation where the use value is based on farm is not the same definition as bona fide farm and the prohibition against counties regulating through zoning regulations bona fide farms. There will be some farms qualified under each and they are only coincidentally related to each other. 192 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BUCC no sooner than August 19, 2003.. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Amend Sections 11, IV and other related sections to define and regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the development of subdivisions,. This item was addressed above. b. Amend Section IV-B-10. Flexible Development- Section C, Open Space Standards to require that at least 75% of residential to#s in a proposed development be contiguous on one or more sides to the system of open space. Craig Benedict said that this is a requested amendment to the subdivision requirements related to flexible development.. Presently, the requirement for open space is 33% if the flexible development option is used. The proposed amendment is an effort to explain more about the functionality of the open space and the characteristics of it. He gave some examples of subdivisions in the County and the configuration of the open space. The intention is not to reduce the amount of lots, but to increase the accessibility of the open space. Commissioner Gordon asked about the 50-foot easement. Craig Benedict said that this would just be open space and a 50-foot corridor would make the open space accessible and would not encroach upon the adjacent properties. Commissioner Gordon asked how big the path would be. Craig Benedict said that this is not a requirement for a path to be put in. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the language says "pedestrian access paths". Craig Benedict said that this language could be changed. The subdivision applicant will decide, with direction, what the 50-foot area should look like. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the side yard setbacks and Craig Benedict said 20 feet. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an improvement to the open space provisions. He suggested on page 11 - C2 -Open Space Functionality, "maintenance of wildlife habitat," He also suggested putting some of the language in more understandable terms for the public Hunter Schofield said that some high-density developments such as affordable housing might come into conflict with these amendments.. He said that we might need to look at how we use our open space standards to help or hinder some other County priorities. Renee Price asked about the setback requirements and open space and the impact it would have on lower and moderate-income housing. 193 Craig Benedict said that they would accent this about the impacts as they move forward. He said that in some cases the open space adds to the value of the lots and it also supports clustering lots and could make them more affordable. Richmond Hills in Efland is a good example of affordable housing and open space working together. Craufurd Goodwin asked about open space in primary conservation areas and if it was open to the general public.. Craig Benedict said that there is no mandate for it to be open to the general public.. If it is a primary conservation area and it is dedicated to the public, this will be determined during the subdivision process.. Commissioner Gordon asked about the 300 feet or less from the open space access point and 600 feet or less. She asked Craig Benedict how he came up with these numbers. Craig Benedict said they looked at existing subdivisions over the last four years and which ones had good access and ones that were not meeting the goal of connectivity. He said that they would elaborate more on some of the examples of the standards. Commissioner Gordon just wants the staff to think about it and what it means. Commissioner Jacobs said that since the 300-foot and the 600-foot standards are arbitrary numbers based on previous experience, he suggested having some flexibility without sacrificing the intent. Craig Benedict agreed that flexibility is important. Public Comment -none A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Manager's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be retuurned to the BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Amend Section IV-B-3, Streets, IV-B-3-b to require that major subdivisions have access on a paved public road. Craig Benedict said that this amendment has to do with major subdivisions that are five lots or more, having access to a paved road and not just a dirt road.. This would not be affecting the small subdivisions. He said that sometimes major subdivisions encroach upon a rural area that is not prepared for development. This provision would say that the major subdivision does not go forward until the right-of-way is available. Public Comment- none A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Manager's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003, VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3, Orange County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Regulations Text Amendments 194 a. Amend Sections 3, 6, 6.1, arrd 7 and other related sections to define and regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with permitted activity. This item was addressed above. 4. Orange County Telecommunications Plan a. Article 6.18.5, Master Telecommunications Plan ("Plan"), of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance allows for the development of a "Master Telecommunications Plan." A tower may be constructed upon issuance of a building permit and after meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements for construction of telecommunications towers. Providers electing to participate in the Plan shall submit required information and filing fee to the County for review by a contracted consultant to verify site necessity. Modifications to the Plan will be considered annually in February of each year. Applications to participate in the Plan are due prior to December 15 of each year. Withdrawals from the Plan are allowed upon notification to the County. Craig Benedict said that this has to do with telecorrrmunicationstnwer regulations. There have been some changes to the class A and class B requirements for towers and to the notification requirements. The purpose of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) is to develop a public safety network to enhance the communication ability of the County and the public service providers. The MTP would allow the public to participate in a pre- identification process to offer ttreir site to allow a tower to come on their property. This proposal is to allow pre-identified sites to be put on the rnap. It does not mean that tdwers will definitely go on the sites, but that the sites are possible locations for towers, There is no special interest to these sites and these sites will still have to go through the same public hearing process as other sites. The list also includes some potential tower sites owned by the County. There have been about 20 private property owners who have expressed interest in allowing their properties to be used as well as OWASA and several voluntary agriculture districts. He said that the MTP would work in conjunction with the existing telecommunications ordinance. As the MTP is adopted, it can be amended each year. Commissioner Jacobs asked how many cell tower applications were pending and Craig Benedict said three by AT&T Wireless, One is in Bingham Township near Bradshaw Quarry Road, one is in Cedar Grove Township near Pentecost Road, and the third is off Lake Orange Road.. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the going rate for a private property owner that has a tower on their land. Craig Benedict said that it is very unique. Some information is proprietary, where the applicant does not want their competitors to know how much they are paying for leasing. There is a potential revenue stream for the County by using County owned sites for towers,. Commissioner Jacobs said that he understands that there is no procedural advantage for these properties compared to other undesignated sites, but having a map with sites implies that the sites are preferred.. He is concerned that there should be a clear component that 195 the County does not encourage cell towers where they have an adverse visual impact on an identified natural area, recreational facility, or historic site. He would like to have a different version of the map that identified those kinds of sites in a different color to see if he wanted to keep them on this map.. Craig Benedict said that they have narrowed down some sites that are environmentally sensitive, etc., Commissioner Jacobs would still like to see the color-coded map. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is very supportive of having voluntary agriculture districts be put on this map. He also knows that the owner can withdraw from being a voluntary agriculture district with practically no notice, and there might need to be some kind of arrangement with the Agricultural Preservation Board to make the voluntary agriculture districts in the MTP a little more concrete, Noah Ranells agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about the voluntary agriculture districts, He said that this might be a good time to promote voluntary agriculture districts to let farmers know that there is some benefit, Commissioner Halkiotis said that the CHCCS has located a cell tower on the athletic field lighting at Gulbreth Middle School. He suggested asking the school system what they are receiving as compensation. He made reference to the tower in Efland that is red and he asked about the regulations for color. Craig Benedict said that there is review for tower color and design. He said that with the new regulations, tower attachments are encouraged on power transmission poles. Public Comment: Elizabeth Walters said that, as a member of the Farmland Preservation Board, she supports the MTP to allow towers on farms in voluntary agriculture districts. She said that she and her husband support this part of the plan, She said that, although a tower will probably never be built on their farm, a tower is needed in the northern part of the County. She has spoken to a few farmers that have a tower an their farm and they say that the money helps them hold onto their farms and continue to farm. She urged the County Commissioners to support the MTP.. Bob Strayhorn is a farmer on New Hope Church Road and has a tower on his farm. He said that they considered putting the tower on their farm because they would do anything to keep from having to sell their land. He said that it is not the golden goose, but it is better than his social security. He said that the voluntary agriculture district does not offer alot except for a commitment to the people that own the land that it will not be sold for subdivisions. He has always thought that if there was a little more to offer people in the voluntary agriculture districts that more people would sign up. He said that they involved every neighbor on their road in considering the tower and no one objected to it and he let them pick the site, He spoke in support of the MTP. Joyce Garrett said that it is critical to maintain an environment where people can get away from everything and see something that is not manmade., There are a lot of towers and already present elevated structures (telecommunication towers, water towers, electrical poles, etc.). She would like to encourage the telecommunication industry to use existing structures. She was under the impression that this map deemed these sites as already approved and would not necessitate notice to the adjoining landowners or to the public. She thinks that cell towers have a larger area that is affected than 1,000 feet. She asked 196 that the area of notification be broadened. She thinks that towers need to be placed away from primary residences because of the adverse affects on the young and the elderly. She would like for there to be consideration of natural habitat and the flight pattern of birds, etc. in reviewing the towers. She thinks that the diagrams are hard to understand on the map and there needs to be clear identification for adjacent property owners,. Noah Ranells pointed out to the County Commissioners that if they were interested in promoting agriculture, it would be much nicer for' farmers to see their' sites listed with the sites for consideration rather than OWASA or Duke Power. Craig Benedict said that he has noted all of the comments and they can be addressed as the public hearing proceeds to the Planning Board and back to the County Commissioners. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to forward this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Barry Jacobs and seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner' Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p m.. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board r 19'7 APPROVED 2/4/2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC NEARING NOVEMBER 25, 2002 7:30 P.M, The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, November 25, 2002 at 7:30 p m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and Vice Chair Hunter Schofield, Jay Bryan, Barry Katz, Craufurd Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel Preston, Howard McAdams, Jay Bryan, Maria Tadd, and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN TtiESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs asked for any comments from any of the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners are going to have to make comments on the Long Range Transportation Plan. She is assuming that no one else has anything more to input, but if they do, they should let her know. Chair Jacobs turned the meeting over to the Planning Board Chair.. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Board Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray chaired these items. (C.1, a-e and C. 2. b -Orange County Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments and Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments) Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict went over the items in the agenda abstract. He gave a history of each item. He said that these items will not be voted on this evening because this is a public hearing for public input. The primary topic is the issue of growth management techniques for subdivisions. 198 Commissioner Brown would like this addressed at some point to make sure that it is only an option that is available in public water and sewer areas. Barry Katz asked the Board of County Commissioners to review the village options. He said that the only place where a village option would make sense would be where there was access to municipal services or' public water and sewer.. Geoff Gledhill read from section 8.8.29.1, subsection'd' as follows: "If the residential lots are proposed to be served by a community water and/or sewer system, proof that the systems will be operating either directly or through a contract with the water andior sewer provider whose service area or interest area as defined in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement include the subdivided land.." This is attempting to open the door' to these community systems if the utility provider would be responsible for them. Commissioner Gordon said that the provision on page nine deserves further scrutiny. She does not believe that this says what Geoff Gledhill explained. It needs to be said more clearly somehow. Craig Benedict will work with Geoff Gledhill on this. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the village option should have public water and sewer.. Renee Price is concerned about cost and the impact this has on others. She asked who would pick up the tab for running the line, There was no public comment on this item., e. Amend the Subdivision Regulations to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. This is addressed in item 2-b.. These items (1a-e and 2b) have similar subdivision and zoning issues and the recommendation from staff is to refer them to the Planning Board and return to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 21 sr for review.. Item 2b is as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer items 1 a-e and 2b to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 21, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING OR_D_INANCE TEX'i AMENDMENTS a. Amend Article 6.18 to allow development of a "Master Telecommunications Plan' which identifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a wireless telecommunications facility by seeking issuance of a building permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan. Craig Benedict said that this is something that the Board of County Commissioners has heard to amend our telecommunications ordinance. Earlier this year, there was asix-month moratorium on telecommunication towers.. There was a placeholder in the regulations that refers to a Master Telecommunications Plan, which can identify sites in the County that can be used by the industry that would limit the 199 amount of total sites that could be used for future towers.. During the moratorium, there were meetings with other departments to find out if there were any County properties that could be involved in the plan, These plans are normal in North Carolina and in other states. He spoke about why a Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) is reasonable, The County can develop a significant amount of non-tax revenue from towers being located on local government property. This plan is a decision of the Board of County Commissioners and if the Board does not want to participate, then that element can become inactive, but it will not affect the other parts of the ordinance.. The plan must be approved through the public hearing process, but this will not be done tonight. Commissioner Brown asked if all of the adjacent property owners of a proposed tower would be notified. Craig Benedict said that in order to be on the MTP, everyone within the 500 foot radius around the proposed site would be notified and would have the ability to make public comment.. Craig Benedict then described the process the staff went through to develop the Master Telecommunications Plan, Each pole should provide for at least four carrier locations. Other areas included in the plan are voluntary agricultural districts.. Most of these areas have poor coverage, so they would be ideal for tower locations.. All of the potential locations for the public/quasi-public sites have been narrowed down to 10-15 sites.. Some of the sites include the Lee Miller Voluntary Ag District, the Tate Voluntary Ag District, Cedar Grove Fire Station, Cedar Grove Ruritan Club, some property owned by Robert Nutter, White Cross Volunteer Fire Station, and some Duke University property. Craig Benedict said that there have been six or seven meetings with department heads and stakeholders and all have received this plan positively, Renee Price asked about notification of neighbors and making the area 1,000 feet. Craig Benedict said that 500 feet is the present number.. He said that if they proceed with the MTP, then they will advertise in the paper about the potential sites and give citizens a chance to speak about the sites, Renee Price asked about the review process every year. Craig Benedict said that there would be a review process if someone wants to add something to the MTP. Chair Gooding-Ray asked about identified school parcels with these sites. Craig Benedict said that most of the schools were in the urban area coverage, and the coverage there was reasonable. Chair Gooding-Ray said that the staff needs to look at the health issues concerning the towers, especially regarding children.. Commissioner Brown asked about the original plan to have one meeting and then the change to four meetings a year. Craig Benedict said that they will still have one annual meeting. But applicants can still come in twice a year. For a Class A, there will be a meeting in December to find out what the applicants are going to tlo within the next year and then it will be plugged in to two quarterly public hearings. The Board of Adjustment wants the Class B applicants to come in on a regular basis. This board did not want a lot of applications coming in all at once. Public Comment Carl Walters said that he is not asking for a cell tower on his property line, but he would like to offer some options. He would like for a conservation farm to be considered first, if it is next to a fire station. The income generated for the farm by having a tower could extend the life of the farm.. There was no one else signed up to speak, Craig Benedict said that the staff is asking the Board whether they should proceed with another public hearing in the first quarter of 2003 to bring letters of intent to 200 the 10-15 property owners.. There would be notification of everyone within 500 feet of the property. They would like to proceed in the first quarter of 2003., Commissioner Gordon asked for Craig Benedict to list ttre sites again. There are two sites on the Walters' property that are voluntary ag sites, Lee Miller is another voluntary ag site.. Orange County has some possible sites - NC 86 (possible Public Works site), Lake Orange. UWASA has some sites outside of the critical area, White Cross Fire Station is a possibility as well as Oak Grove Baptist Church. The property owners need to sign a document saying that they are definitely interested in being a part of the MTP program. Commissioner Gordon asked if preference would be given to a voluntary ag site. Commissioner Carey asked about properly beside a County site and a conflict of interest. Craig Benedict said that they could not push preferences for any sites.. He said that the process that the County will go through to offer the land for telecommunication purposes will be the same process that a private entity can use. Chair Jacobs asked about how to advertise that these opportunities are available.. He asked how we would let people in the agricultural community know that this is a possibility. Craig Benedict said that if someone wants to enter the voluntary ag system in the coming year, the MTP can be adjusted to add their property. This incentive can be sent to the Ag Preservation Board and ERCD. He said that they also sent notices out to all of the fire stations. John Link said that as the staff is notifying joint owners, they will share the information with the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners first prior to sending it out. Chair Jacobs asked about hiring a consultant to refine this plan. He asked if that would be part of a subsequent process or this process. Craig Benedict said that they need a consultant to respond to the applications that come forward, The fee structure in the amendments will pay for the consultants. When the consultant is hired, they can be used to refine the MTP. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Administration's recommendation to approve the pursuit of finalization of the Master Telecommunications Plan and to direct staff to prepare the Plan for formal adoption through the public hearing process and to bring back in the first quarter of 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Amend Article 6.29.3 to create a Secondary Development Area south of i-85 in the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (EDD). Craig Benedict said that the entire EDD was considered a primary development area (retail, industrial, manufacturing, etc.). The suggested change in the secondary development area would allow for some banking and institutional uses and also some residential uses. The residential uses would be multi-family and not single- farnilydetached. The suggestion is that animal houses and kennels, construction, and manufacturing would not be allowed in the secondary development area,. Commissioner Gordon asked about the impetus for bringing this forward at this time. She thinks that this is the most appropriate place for this type of development and not secondary development. Craig Benedict said that there has not been any activity in the non-residential sector in this sector at all, If there can be a lead use to spur infrastructure, it might open up the entire area that could lead to a water and sewer system. 201 o - U O . O O O ~~ ~ U _ N ~~ C E = 0 ~ ~ o ~ r '~ 'cn y ~ a~ ~ m rn ® r. ~ ~ _ ~ CV L ® ,~ ~ rn ~ ~ T A fI 0 •~ r ~ e If1 T ~ N T ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ T T ~ ~ ~ W ~ CEO ~ ~ ~ ~ dam' C~'7 0 ~ 0 N ~ (~aa~ ui) ~y6ia~ ~oz 203 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director eonn~P of 0f Current Planning ~;` , a p, 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~( `' p 5~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) ~° Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us °'(e ~„~~~°` North Carolina, 27278 {? TO: Land owners expressing interest in the Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) DATE: April 5, -2004 SUBJECT: Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) Public Hearing Orange County has recently amended the current zoning regulations regarding telecommunication towers and related facilities. In the course of amending the regulations, the County has attempted to identify public, private, and semi-/quasi-public properties that may be suitable for the location of telecommunication equipment (towers or antennas), The purpose being to identify sites that, given their strategic location in relation to existing telecommunications facilities and related infrastructure, may be suitable for the location of future telecommunications towers or related facilities. The resulting plan is called a "Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP)",. The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best locations for overall public benefit, public safety, Emergency Management information, public service information trasfer, and limit the number of towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such towers, OnIV if _ ... _ ~.L L..... L.. participate. Many potential sites include Voluntary Agricultural Districts, fire stations, community centers, and public (ands where tower revenue could be returned to the entities that provide benefits to the area citizens, Towers or tower antenna could be located on silos, steeples, water tanks and be restricted by whatever the landowner prescribes, as long as it does not exceed the general standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The County understands and feels strongly that cooperation with potential and known stakeholders within the County is an important factor to consider, while the MTP is being drafted and proposed. You are receiving this notice because you have expressed interest in being inclued in the MTP. No telecommunication towers are being proposed for these sites at this time, only that the noted sites may be supportive of an efficient pattern of future tower placement. A public hearing on the subject will be held on May 24, 2004, where this issue will be discussed but not voted upon.. The public hearing will begin at 7:00 P.M., and will be held in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC. There is a possibility that G\Current Planning Div\Ticing\MTPTowerStakeholder3 ltr 2i04 2 neighboring property owners may be concerned about the inclusion of your property, and otters, in the MTP. I look forward to your interest and participation. If you have any questions, please call me at {919) 245-2592., Sincerely ~~~ ~~2~~2i~_ - v Craig N. Benedict, AICP Planning Director G:\Current Planning Div\Tking\MTPTowerstakehoider3.itr cc: MTP File 205 Orange Rural Fire Depar'lment, #1 Box 549 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 White Cross Volunteer Fire Route 1 Box :328B Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Orange Grove Volunteer Fire 6800 Orange Grove Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Lee Miller 3600 Pearson Road Hurdle Mills, North Carolina 27541 Hurley Tate 862.3 Harmony Church Road Efland, North Carolina 27243 Victor Walters, 7r, 7119 High Rock Road Efland, North Carolina 2724.3 Duke Energy Corporation P. O. Box 16909 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Orange Water and Sewer Authority P. O. Box .36G Cat'rboro, North Carolina 27510 ~~ 206 LETTER OF INTEREST AND INTENT IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ORANGE COUNTY, NC MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN I (We) hereby state my (our) interest and intent to participate in the Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan.. I (We) further understand that the signing of this statement in no way legally binds me (us) to actually participate or have my (our) property included within the final Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) should I (We) decide not to participate in the MTP. Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Date Date Date ~o~ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director `,yn~P °r or Administration h` , ~ , °°= 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~_ ° ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ~° Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 www.co.orange.nc.us °'re ~•~°"`~ April 2, 2004 Dear Telecommunication Tower Provider; Orange County is in the process of developing the Wireless Element of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP). The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best locations for overall public benefit, Emergency Management information, and, limit the number of towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such towers.. We believe it is essential that the most up-to-date and accurate data form the factual basis of the MTP. For this reason we are requesting your assistance. Would you take a few minutes to review the attached map and associated database? If you own a particular tower, or have equipment on another, would you please indicate such, the height of the your facility, the date the tower was constructed, if known, and if there are multiple users of the tower? Thank you for your time and the consideration, which you have given to our requests. This information will be used during the Orange County Annual Telecommunication Projection Meeting each winter. If you have any questions or additional information, or wish to participate in the MTP process, please contact Mr. Glenn Bowles of the Orange County Planning and Inspection Department by telephone at 919.245.2577 or by email at gbowles(cr~co orange nc.us. Sincere) ,' G'~~~ Craig Benedict, Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 1 G:\CUrrent Planning Division\TKing\Tower Ord\provider letter 3-29.doc zos Master Telecommunication Plan (MTP) Figure 1. Cell Tower Sites in Oran ge County 60 i 8 ~ 23 1 '~--~1a O 6 r - ~ ., m ~ / V 83 5 j I~ p ~ eMMb o! t ®v 7 J en ~y ~ 6 28 24 S 2~ p ss 6 6 9' ~ee O ,2 . P•6 Ce*°~ ~ 67.4 T ~ ®~ 9 ~epentl ^ owt o+x.eru+M.am `°"'^ u ~ OI 6 1.xs e+.,aa. O ~"+ -~, x.lplpm., O . . -.r ICM9mI O C 1 •\. MgcRW '\. M.P..! aWa PeMep O nn...~w~,m.umr.... o IlwnbNFebw,m. ® I \ ® ]-> G ® ..5 6 ® 1 ®e'1 o • ® ..0 • 0 r • I SS ` ~.e O I ®ea 2 O ~-~ xm oxa ew.. f " D O e.e a ~ O e.r O I WN.Mem9x. Y ]..] G o 0 ~ ~• n a. O 1 ®e.> Q 1) IIOI RYR Mmge,. O .e 0 99 p ..: ° e .Ln~ oe,,. ~~ II,g _--- M g ~. »~,,.1 ~ ~ r _:..__ . 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 W~ mmcuo-~tG~a Feea rFt~cEscw grown Castle Atlantic, LLC Pyramid Site Acquisition 150 Dominion Drive 4116 Redington Drive Suite A Raleigh, NC 27609 Morrisville, NC 27560 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. 100 Regency Forest Drive Suite 300 Cary, NC 27511 KCI Tower Systems 387 Corenlius Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Southern Bell Forecast Office Room 413 5715 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 Lynch & Eatman P.O. Box 30515 Raleigh, NC 27622-0515 7rigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. P.O.. Box 18846 Greensboro, NC 27419-8846 tae tCTd~OCo1Ge tQ%6 ~'a ~~ 209 Services SBS, Inc. 401 Rogers View Court Suite 109 Raleigh, NC 27610 American Tower 13801 Reese Blvd. West Suite 350 Huntersville, NC 28078 GTE Wireless 6501 Weston Parkway Suite 100 Cary, NC 27513 Nextel Communications 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600 Cary, NC 27511 Market Lead Attorney-Leasing 14001 Weston Parkway Suite 106A Cary, NC 27513 The Win Group 12425 Angel Oak Drive Huntersville, NC 28078 Gearon Communications 3016 Hillsborough Street Suite 201 Raleigh, NC 27607 Sprint PCS 1357 Hembree Road Suite 100 Roswell, GA 30076 Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP Attorneys at Law 3737 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 276 1 2-55 1 5 Pronet, Inc. 3200 Glen Royal Road Suite 102 Raleigh, NC 27612 Duke Communications Services 400 South Tryon Street Mail Code WC29H Charlotte, NC 28201 ~'~~ ~f~~~ ~'~ ~~ciu"ress La[~,c@s LascU SACsC~ ,a__ 210 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ceunq or Or Current Planning ~" t = ~= 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~_ ° i P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ,~° Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us `~„ ~.~_°°~ North Carolina, 27278 DATE: May 1, 2003 SUBJECT: SDlicitation of interest in participation in the Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) Orange County has ,recently arnended the current zoning regulations regarding telecommunication towers and related facilities. In the course of amending the regulations, the County has attempted to identify public, private, and semi-!quasi-public properties that may be suitable for the location of telecommunication equipment (towers or antennas). The purpose being to identify sites that, given their strategic location in relation to existing telecommunications facilities and related infrastructure, may be suitable for the location of future telecommunications towers or related facilities. The resulting plan is called a "Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP)". The purpose of the MTP is to provide the best locations for overall public benefit and also limit the number of towers built in the County by suggesting some prime locations for such towers. Only if property owners are interested in being part of the MTP program do then have to participate. Many potential sttes include Voluntary Agricultural Distracts, fire stations, community centers, and public lands where tower revenue could be returned to the entities that provide benefits to the area citizens. Towers or tower antenna could be located on silos, steeples, water tanks and be restricted by whatever the landowner prescribes, as long as it does not exceed the general standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The County understands and feels strongly that cooperation with potential and known stakeholders within the County is an important factor to consider, while the MTP is being drafted and proposed. You are receiving this letter because the property (properties) you own located at Address: 7119 High Rock Road, Efland, NC 27243 Township: Cedar Grove Tax Map #42, Block #~-, Lot #11 & 11A PIN: 9836-19-7855 & 9836-08-6227 G:\Current Planning Div\Tking\MTPTowerStakeholder3 Itr TO: Potential participants in the Orange County, NC Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP)