Orange County NC Website
106 . <br /> 6. Unreasonable Interference with View. <br /> The proposed amendment presented for public hearing in November 1995 <br /> included a standard that "the tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere <br /> with the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor. <br /> Questions were raised regarding how "unreasonable interference" would be <br /> defined. This provision has been eliminated from the draft due to the lack of a <br /> specific standard to define "unreasonable". The intent of the provision would <br /> be met in making the general Special Use Permit findings, particularly the <br /> findings that the use maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and <br /> that the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area in which it <br /> is to be located and is in compliance with zoning regulations and the Land Use <br /> Plan. <br /> 7. Minimum Tower Height <br /> It is expected that the height of new towers will decrease after construction of <br /> the network of towers that will provide the basic coverage needed for the <br /> system. The location of additional towers is based on demand, and as towers <br /> are closer together, the height needed is not as great. Based on a review of <br /> requirement of other jurisdictions, both local and national, the Planning Staff <br /> recommends that towers less than 75 feet in height be permitted by right. <br /> 8. Other Types of Towers <br /> Commissioner Willhoit questioned applicability to towers other than those <br /> used for telecommunication purposes, such as those used for air quality <br /> monitoring. <br /> The staff recommends that telecommunication towers continue to be treated as <br /> a specific use because each tower is constructed in the context of a larger <br /> network, and it can be anticipated that requests for additional towers in the <br /> network will continue. The proposed ordinance provisions address issues <br /> which are unique to a telecommunications network. <br /> Other tower-like structures or facilities are now subject to an additional setback <br /> requirement of one foot for every two feet of height above the height limit <br /> specified for the zoning district. Also, the tower must be associated with a <br /> use that is permitted in the zoning district. Although there are occasional tower <br /> structures proposed for purposes other than telecommunication, these requests <br /> are infrequent, and the Staff has identified no trend which would indicate plans <br /> to develop a coordinated network for some other purpose in the future. The <br /> Planning Staff recommends that other tower structures continue to meet the <br /> applicable setback requirements. If the County wishes to apply different or <br /> additional standards or review procedures to other types of towers, a separate <br /> ordinance amendment is recommended. <br />