Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
- EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication <br /> towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations. <br /> ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company, <br /> which used to be Sprint Cellular, made reference to several sections and made comments. <br /> (1) 8.8.17a.1 requires "a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200 <br /> feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 1/4 mile. He has no problems with providing <br /> any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information on towers <br /> outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the number of <br /> towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range. <br /> (2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all existing <br /> towers in the search range and assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or <br /> whether the antennas'transmitters and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic <br /> interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower." He <br /> said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want it only if it is relevant. <br /> For example, if a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a commercially reasonable rate, <br /> it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are fairly detailed and expensive <br /> engineer studies. <br /> (3) 6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance - Principal Uses - to his knowledge, this is the only <br /> County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision <br /> Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation. <br /> With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no <br /> less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property <br /> owners. An easement is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased. <br /> BARRY JACOBS, Caretaker of Moorefields in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their <br /> efforts in regulating these towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal <br /> with a request on one of their water tanks, which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the <br /> requirements for"Unreasonable Interference with View". He suggested that the wording "significant <br /> adverse impact' be used instead of"Unreasonable". He suggested that under the "Special Use Permit <br /> Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property may <br /> not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration under a <br /> Special Use Permit. The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is maintained is <br /> subjective. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help visualize how high the <br /> tower would be and what it may impact from that height. With reference to health effects, they found that <br /> there are no proven health risk from communication towers. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer <br /> this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners <br /> no sooner than August 5, 1996. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> Commissioner Willhoit asked that the communication companies be requested to provide <br /> information on the health impact of communication towers - -what the standards are, energy level, and if <br /> they are directional or focused and the power level compared to the standard. <br /> Mr. Benshoff added that what the Communications Act of 1996 does is establish a safety <br /> standard. It does not take the County out of the business of regulating it. It says that the American National <br /> Standards Institute, the Institute that sets safety guidelines for everything from towers to bicycle helmets, has <br /> established a safety standard where all this evidence we have been referring to indicates it is safe. What the <br /> Telecommunications Act says is that the County must look at this standard and use that standard and so long <br /> as the facility meets that standard, that it is the standard applicable for local governments. <br /> ADJOURNMENT <br />