Browse
Search
PH-NS ORD-1996-015 Proposed Subdivision Regulation Text Amendment Section III-C-4 and III-D-3c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 1990-1999
>
1996
>
PH-NS ORD-1996-015 Proposed Subdivision Regulation Text Amendment Section III-C-4 and III-D-3c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/26/2013 3:50:49 PM
Creation date
10/24/2013 2:32:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/28/1996
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
C 5 a&B
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-28-1996 - C5(a&b)
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1996\Agenda - 05-28-1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NEAL TAPP said that this property is in the woods and this use would cause the property to <br /> remain wooded and the tower would not be seen from the road. <br /> EVE OLIVE, President of the Emerson Waldorf School, which is close to this area, said that if <br /> there is going to be a telecommunications tower on this property, she is concerned about the health impact <br /> on the children. She stated that there has been a lot of evidence concerning the high incidence of leukemia <br /> in children living near power lines. She asked that this health impact be stated in the Zoning Ordinance and <br /> that the regulations limit the proximity of radio towers to areas where there are large numbers of younger <br /> children. <br /> County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that the County Commissioners have a <br /> responsibility to look at all the possible uses in making their decision on a rezoning. The Board would be <br /> endorsing these uses if they approve the rezoning request. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther 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 /> (b) Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion <br /> (HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b) <br /> 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments <br /> (a) Telecommunication Towers <br /> 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table <br /> 2) Article 8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and <br /> Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use) <br /> 3) Article 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (Special Use Permit requirements) <br /> 4) Article 6.3.1 Principal Uses <br /> 5) Article 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers <br /> (new) <br /> Planner Mary Willis presented the information for this item. She summarized her response to <br /> the concerns heard at the November 27, 1995 public hearing. She outlined the changes in this proposal <br /> which are listed in the agenda abstract. <br /> In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis said that all the changes with <br /> the exception of the notice to citizens are less stringent. She clarified some of the new language used in the <br /> proposed changes. <br /> In answer to a question from Chair Carey about a study showing adverse health impacts from <br /> communication towers, Mary Willis said that everything she has read indicates that there is no identifiable <br /> health risk associated with communication towers. She will provide documentation to the County <br /> Commissioners. <br /> County Attorney Geof Gledhill stated that he feels that the 1995 Cable Communications Act <br /> takes the County Commissioners out of the business of making a decision based on safety issues concerning <br /> communication towers. Congress made the decision that they were safe. He will provide information to the <br /> Board on this issue. <br /> Karen Barrows asked about the minimum setback and Mary Willis said that the full setback of <br /> 100% will be required. However, if the adjacent property owner did not object to a lesser setback, that could <br /> be approved. This provides for flexibility. <br /> Renee Price noted that there have been studies about health impacts from communication <br /> towers and that she is also concerned about this issue. <br /> S.A.M. Brooks asked about the setbacks for the adjoining property owners and noted that it <br /> would be difficult to know the impact on adjoining property until after the tower is built. Mary Willis indicated <br /> that they do have photographs which help in determining what impact towers of varying heights would have <br /> on adjoining property. <br /> In answer to a question from Margaret Brown, Mary Willis said that the 500 foot notice is from <br /> the boundaries of the property on which the tower would be located. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.