Agenda - 08-20-1996 - VIII-E - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 © U U LTL1 19 Price asked when phases III and IV would be submitted. Cameron responded that Phase III will be the 23 acres that has already been submitted as a concept plan which is about to expire. If it does expire, it will come in later under the new provisions. Price continued expressing concern with the road system. Cameron responded that on the concept plan there were two cul-de-sacs in Phase III. Once all of the soils work is completed,densities may change and the roads may not be built as shown on the concept plan. Price was concerned with the amount of traffic being dumped onto Bacon Road. Cameron noted that due to the soils and stream buffers there would not be as many as twenty lots. MOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 5/28/96 a. Zoning Ordinance Teat Amendments (1) Telecommunication Towers Presentation by Mary Willis. Concern with the increasing number of telecommunication towers has been raised locally and nationwide by citizens,advisory boards and governing boards in recent years. At the November 27, 1995 public hearing,the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board received citizen comments on a proposed amendment to Special Use Permit provisions relating to telecommunication towers. The speakers at the public hearing included five industry representatives and one Orange County resident. On January 18, 1996,the Ordinance Review Committee,as well as another interested Planning Board member and a member of the Board of Adjustment met with the telecommunication providers who spoke at the public hearing. The purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to gain an understanding of issues and technical concerns raised at the public hearing and to consider modifications to the proposal which would address those issues while maintaining the purpose and intent of the proposed amendment. One of the major issues raised at the public hearing concerned the potential health effects of electro-magnetic radiation. The telecommunications Act of 1996(Section 704(Bxiv)and the Federal Communications Commission New National Wireless Tower Siting Policies (Section 1.1307(b))prohibit denial of a cellular telephone facility on the basis of health effects if it meets applicable standards issued by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI). Studies conducted in 1994 and 1995 for a 360 tower located at 515 South Greensboro Street,are on file in the Planning Department. Conclusions of the 1995 study state that"exposure levels measured on the ground and inside the equipment shelter.....continue to be more than one hundred times less than the protection guides