NS ORD-1996-033 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Telecommunication Towers

Browse Search

DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 5/28/96 57 7 1 Karen Barrows asked about the minimum setback and Mary Willis said that the full setback of 2 100%will be required. However, if the adjacent property owner did not object to a lesser setback, that 3 could be approved. This provides for flexibility. 4 Renee Price noted that there have been studies about health impacts from communication 5 towers and that sho is also concerned about this issue. 6 S.A.M. Brooks asked about the setbacks for the adjoining property owners and noted that it 7 would be difficult to know the impact on adjoining property until after the tower is.built Mary Willis indicated 8 that they do have photographs which help in determining what impact towers of varying heights would have 9 on adjoining property. 10 In answer to a question from Margaret Brown, Mary Willis said that the 500 foot notice is from 11 the boundaries of the property on which the tower would be located. 12 13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS 14 15 EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication 16 towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations. 17 ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company, 16 which used to be Sprint Cellular,made reference to several sections and made comments. 19 20 (1) 8.8.17a.1 requires"a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200 21 feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 1/4 mile. He has no problems with 22 providing any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information 23 on towers outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the 24 number of towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range. 25 (2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all 26 existing towers in the search range and assess whether the existing tower could be structurally 27 strengthened or whether the antennas'transmitters and related equipment could be protected from 28 electromagnetic interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the 29 existing tower." He said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want 30 it only if it is relevant. For example, 0 a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a 31 commercially reasonable rate, it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are 32 fairly detailed and expensive engineer studies. 33 (3)6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance- Principal Uses-to his knowledge, this is the only 34 County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision 35 Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation. 36 37 With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no 38 less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property 39 owners. An easement'is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased. 40 41' BARM JACOBS, Caretaker of Mooreflelds in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their 42 efforts in regulaftft a towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal 43 with a request art an of their water tanks,which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the 44 requirements for"Unreasonable Interference with View". He suggested that the wording"significant 45 adverse impact be used instead of"Unreasonable". He suggested that under the"Special Use Permit 46 Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property_ 47 may not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration 48 under a Special Use Permit. The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is 49 maintained is subjective.. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help 50 visualize how high the tower would be and what it may impact from that height. With reference to health 51 effects, they found that there are no proven health risk from communication towers. 52