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

Browse Search

6 1 2 Mary Willis commented that the industry representatives are able to calculate the 3 collapse zone. It is possible to calculate where a tower would break if it were to fall. It is also 4 possible to calculate the area to which the debris would be contained. 5 6 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. 7 An E ,a representative of the Carolina PCS Limited Partnership, made several 8 comments. This Partnership, which is comprised of Bell South Corporation, Duke Power 9 Company, Carolina Power & Light and the 31 independent telephone companies in North 10 Carolina, was formed to bring to the citizens of North Carolina a new technology called 11 Personal Communication Services. This is a new technology, recently licensed by the FCC, 12 which provides a wider range of services and operates at a lower power than existing cellular 13 services. This is a digital rather than an analog technology which means that it can transmit 14 data as well as voice. This provides greater clarity and security. All of the towers that use this 15 new technology will be lower than 200 feet. The concerns that he has about this proposed 16 rewrite include the possibility that it will be too restrictive for this new technology to grow and 17 expand. He asked that incentives be implemented to encourage all companies to build their 18 systems without constructing new towers. Other possible places to locate using "stealth 19 technology" are bell towers and church steeples, water towers, and tall buildings. He 20 suggested that the incentives would be the cost savings as well as the possibility that the Board 21 of Commissioners could exempt"stealth technology" locations from the Use Permit process and 22 allow for staff approval. He also commented on the suggested standard for "unreasonable 23 interference with the view" from historic sites, scenic roads or major view corridor. He felt that it 24 would be impossible to accurately determine this standard because of its subjectivity. If the 25 intent is to assure that the tower is in harmony with the area of location, that standard already 26 exists in the ordinance. 27 28 Rk* anager of Forsythe Development f l irl (ewer/operation of 29 Cellul `' , reiferatMr. Cain's comments. He disagreed with the requirement that industry 30 notify other companies about intention to erect a tower. The construction of towers which 31 support co-location of towers is already required. County staff is aware of all activity and is the 32 logical entity to keep tract of new requests for towers and/or tower use and matching those 33 requests with already erected towers with available space. He also felt that requiring this type 34 of notification unfairly handicaps current tower owners both competitively and from a capital 35 investment standpoint. Another area in which he expressed concern was the "fall zone" 36 requirement. The industry does not feel that"fall zones" are necessary. There are 2000 towers 37 across the United States and there has never been a tower failure. He requested that these 38 towers not be compared with the T.V. towers which are in excess of 1000 feet. He also 39 commented that the 100 foot setback is not necessary or reasonable. 40 41 rsonal Communications, expressed agreement with 42 previous comment Hie a ressee issue of"stealth technology" which refers to antennas 43 that do not look like antennas. He recommended that a task force be created to look at this 44 technology to assure that they meet the intended nature and intent of the technology. When 45 they are approved as "stealth technology"the industry could be provided relief from subdivision