Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
visually obtrusive and not recognized to the average person as <br />a wireless support structure. <br />There is an existing ‘stealth’ tower approximately 1,300 ft. south of this site <br />within the City/County of Durham’s planning jurisdiction. <br />While staff is supportive of the use of stealth technology, and the UDO <br />encourages same, we cannot compel and/or mandate this proposed <br />telecommunication facility be designed as a stealth tower. <br />Having said that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating the tower <br />will not have a significant visual impact in the area (Section 5.10.8 (A) (3) <br />(k)). In order to meet this requirement, the applicant may have to employee <br />stealth technology. <br />h. Local residents indicated they believe there is existing/sufficient cellular <br />coverage in the area negating the need for the proposed facility. <br />STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has the burden of proving the need for the <br />tower as required within the UDO. They have provided information in Tab(s) <br />10 and 19 of the application package in an attempt to address this concern. <br />Conversely those in opposition to the tower have a responsibility to submit <br />evidence refuting same. <br />Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions related to existing cellular service are not <br />sufficient testimony. <br />i. Concerns were expressed that telecommunication towers are not appropriate <br />for development within the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district due to its <br />intent/purpose of only allowing low intensity development in an effort to <br />maintain the rural aesthetic of the area. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Per Section 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO <br />telecommunication facilities are a permitted use of property within the RB <br />zoning district subject to the issuance of a SUP. <br /> There are existing telecommunication facilities within the RB zoning district, <br />the majority of these reviewed and acted upon through this very process. <br />j. An individual stated as the County has never denied a telecommunication <br />tower application, local property owners opposed to the project will not receive <br />a fair hearing. <br />k. Several individuals suggested it was unfair local residents assume the financial <br />burden for fighting the project and that the County ought to pay/reimburse them <br />for any incurred costs associated with the hiring of an attorney and/or experts <br />to ‘fight’ the application. <br />9. Attachment 4 of this abstract contains comments from various County departments, <br />including staff’s initial zoning review of the application and the County’s <br />telecommunication consultant recommendation(s) on the proposal. <br />10. Review of SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial format meaning that <br />decisions relating to the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the <br />sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against an <br />application, as well as the review of the competent material and substantial evidence <br />submitted into evidence during the public hearing. <br />58