Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-27-1995 - C-4-a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 11-27-95
>
Agenda - 11-27-1995 - C-4-a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2015 4:11:57 PM
Creation date
1/12/2015 4:11:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/27/1995
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C-4-a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19951127
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Multiple Users <br /> Frequently,antennas for more than one service provider can be located on a single tower, The owner of the <br /> tower can lease tower space to another user, provided that the tower is structurally able to support the use <br /> and the antenna does not create interference. There are trade-offs in height. Additional height may be <br /> needed in order to provide space for more user since each antenna must be at a height which provides the <br /> needed coverage. Lattice towers generally provide the greatest opportunity for co-location. <br /> REGULATIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS <br /> A recent American Planning Association publication pertaining to the siting of communication towers is attached. In <br /> it are references to the regulations of a number of jurisdictions throughout the country. Planning Staff obtained <br /> copies of tower ordinances from some of those jurisdictions as well as from several local jurisdictions. Below is a <br /> summary of some of the key regulations of these jurisdictions. In almost all of the jurisdictions surveyed, <br /> communication towers were considered a special or conditional use requiring approval of the Board of Adjustment or <br /> the governing body. In some cases, the permit approval process depended on the height of the tower or the district <br /> within which it is located. <br /> • Durham City/County <br /> Towers 35 feet or less in low-density residential districts, 75 feet or less in office/institutional districts, 120 <br /> feet or less in some commercial district,and 200 feet less in more intensive commercial and industrial districts <br /> are allowed by right. A Minor Use Permit is required for towers taller than the minimum allowed by right <br /> but shorter than 200 feet. A Major Special Use Permit is required for all towers greater than 200 feet. <br /> However, towers greater than 200 feet are not allowed in the R-20 district. <br /> Setbacks depend on the height of the tower and the zoning district of adjacent property. Setbacks for towers <br /> in residential districts must be at least equal to the height of the tower. The setback must also contain an <br /> established forested area with a depth of at least 100 feet. If the 100' requirement cannot be met, a <br /> landscaped buffer is required.Setbacks can be reduced by the Board of Adjustment in special circumstances. <br /> Additional users and equipment which do not add to tower height may be added without additional approval. <br /> Site plans must show the locations for at least two equipment buildings, even if the tower is proposed for a <br /> single user. <br /> The applicant must provide documentation that no suitable facilities within the coverage area are available <br /> to the applicant.In addition,a statement must be provided indicating the owner's intent to allow shared use <br /> of the tower, and the number of additional users that could be accommodated. <br /> In determining whether or not a tower is in harmony with the area, the approval body may consider the <br /> aesthetic effects of the tower as well as mitigating factors concerning aesthetics,and may disapprove a tower <br /> on the grounds that such aesthetic effects are unacceptable. Specific factors relevant to aesthetic effects are: <br /> the protection of the view in sensitive or particularly scenic areas and areas specially designated in adopted <br /> plans such as unique natural features, scenic roadways,and historic sites; the concentration of towers in the <br /> proposed area;and whether the height,design,placement or other characteristics of the proposed tower could <br /> be modified to have a less intrusive visual impact. <br /> • Hillsborough <br /> Hillsborough zoning regulations require that telecommunication towers receive approval of a Special Use <br /> Permit by the Board of Adjustment or Town Board,depending on the zoning district within which the tower <br /> is to be located. However, the Special Use Permit provisions do not provide for a height greater than that <br /> allowed by the zoning district, thus the maximum height of a tower is 65 feet. This height is generally <br /> insufficient to allow for the required coverage of the antenna, and applicants typically look for nearby area <br /> in Orange County's jurisdiction. The Hillsborough Planning Director is working with Orange County Planning <br /> Staff and will be proposing that Hillsborough adopt regulations similar to those of Orange County. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.