Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
60 <br /> shelter.....continue to be more than one hundred times less than the protection guides <br /> set forth in ANSI C95.1-1982.....It is extremely likely that a more sensitive <br /> electromagnetic monitor would show the exposure levels to be thousands of times <br /> less than the maximums established by the standards...." <br /> Information from the American Planning Association regarding <br /> electromagnetic fields associated with communication facilities is also on file in the <br /> Planning Department. It states that no scientific study has shown a specific <br /> correlation between cancer and cellular communication devices.Likewise,no study <br /> has conclusively proven them to be safe. It has not been possible to obtain <br /> conclusive evidence thus far because most homes are equipped with a variety of <br /> appliances that generate electromagnetic fields,therefore it is difficult to isolate the <br /> effect of any single source. <br /> The amendment presented for public hearing in May 1996 did not include the <br /> previously-proposed requirement that the"tower and antenna will not unreasonable <br /> interfere with the view of or from any historic site,scenic road or major view <br /> corridor". Staff had recommended that the provision be deleted due to the difficulty <br /> in defining or interpreting"unreasonable interference". One citizen who spoke at <br /> the public hearing suggested that instead of being eliminated,the wording be <br /> changed to"significant adverse impact". This recommended change is incorporated <br /> in the proposed text. <br /> It was also suggested that balloons be used to help visualize the height of the tower <br /> in order to determine its visual impact. The proposed application <br /> requirements have been revised to include a provision that a balloon be floated at the <br /> proposed tower location to the maximum height of the tower,and that photographs <br /> be taken from areas such as property lines,and nearby residential areas and <br /> roadways. <br /> One representative from the telecommunication industry spoke at the public hearing. <br /> He expressed opposition to providing detailed information regarding co-location <br /> efforts for towers outside of the search range,as well as to information which may <br /> not be relevant(such as detailed structural information where the tower owner has <br /> refused to lease space on a commercially reasonable basis). Other concerns cited <br /> included tower setbacks,and the application of subdivision requirements to tower <br /> sites. (It has been determined that subdivision approval is not required for leased <br /> tower sites.) <br /> Additional comments concerning industry concerns are included in letters on file in <br /> the Planning Department. <br /> The Planning Staff has incorporated changes in the proposal as presented at the <br /> May 28, 1996 public hearing in response to comments received through the public <br /> hearing process. <br /> 1) Add 8.8.17.2(l)(Standards of Evaluation): The tower and antenna <br /> will not result in a significant adverse impact on the view of or from any <br /> historic site,scenic road,or major view corridor. <br /> 2) Add 8.8.17a.1(h)(Additional Information): In addition to the information <br /> required in subsections 8.2 and 8.8,the following shall be submitted as part of <br /> the application...(h)Photographs shall be taken from locations such as property <br /> lines,and/or nearby residential areas,historic sites,roadways,including scenic <br />