ORD-2006-105 - Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (PEMC) Planned Development (PD-OI) and Special Use Permit, Class A

Browse Search

PURPOSE: To consider the Planning Board recommendations regarding the PEMC request to amend its Planned Development — Office /Institution (PD-01) zoning district and its Class A Special Use Permit to permit the principal use of a 350 -foot replacement tower at its administrative and operations. center located at 2500 NC Highway 86 South, Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: On October 3, 2006 at a special, joint public hearing, the BOCC referred this item to the Planning Board for its recommendation. Issues revealed at the October 3 Public Hearing include the following topics (The responses to the questions are in italics.): 1. The applicant would like to construct a higher tower to provide better coverage, to better communicate with the other towers, and to transfer data between its three offices. 2. What impact will the proposed tower have on migratory bird patterns? The applicant does not believe the impact will be significant. The proposed tower is self - supporting and does not require guy wires. The lighting is a white strobe fixture with long periods. A self - supporting tower has a less fatal effect on birds than a guyed tower and white lights, with a long strobe period have less negative effect on birds than the normal red lights with a short period. The County's tower consultant stated that if guy wires were used for this project, then there would be more reason for concern about the tower's impact on migratory birds. The consultants recommend that the lighting be shielded because of the bird attraction and ground scattering of the light. The replacement tower's impact on aviary wildlife raised no concerns from the consultant's viewpoint. 3. What effect will the electronic emissions have on the human population in the neighborhood? The replacement tower will be using the same frequency as is presently used, but with less power. The tower is nearly double the vertical distance as the present antenna. The County's consultant estimated that a tower of the height proposed for this project will result in negligible human exposure to radio frequency emissions. The tower consultant advised that the FCC has pre - empted local enforcement or enactment of electro- magnetic tower antenna emissions standards. Any facility located on a tower that is more than 10 meters above the ground is "categorically excluded" from local review according to FCC regulations. However, local govemments are vested with the authority to verify that a tower is operated in compliance with FCC regulations. A condition of the SUP approval is that the tower emissions are regularly tested to insure compliance with applicable regulations. 4. Questions were raised concerning the balloon test, the notification procedures, and the time of day the test took place. Board members did not like the quality of the photographs used in the information packet. It was suggested that County rules governing notification and the specifics of the balloon test be reviewed. The balloon test was held on a Monday from 8.00 am to 1:00 p.m., one hour longer than required. All property owners within 1, 000 feet of the 35 -acre Piedmont property were notified by registered mail, as is required. The second legal notification (for the Public Hearing) was also sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Piedmont property, as is required. 5. Co- location is a possibility. Is the tower structure designed to accommodate such additional loads? The tower is designed to support four additional co- location facilities. 6. Is the tower proposed for public safety and is it a public need (necessity)? It is the burden of the applicant to prove that the replacement tower will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property unless the use is found to be a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The review process was expedited because of the public health, safety and welfare benefits the proposed replacement tower presents. The applicant must prove either that the replacement tower is a public necessity or that the construction of the replacement tower