[Durham INC] INC questions re new Cell Tower Amendment

[Donna Rudolph]

INC MEMBERS:  AMENDMENT TC1200013  to regulate the Wireless Communications
Facilities (WCFs) in Durham,  comes from neighborhoods' requesting to be
involved when cell towers locate in residential areas.  It was presented to
Joint City-County Planning, Sept. 4. Please read, share, and respond to the
following: 

Background:  With smart phones and lower rates for data, the wireless
traffic is growing (is there anyone who hasn't heard complaints about
wireless service getting worse?), which means the networks need to be
expanded, by adding more antenna onto existing towers and/or building new
towers.   Also, because of the network outages after Hurricane Sandy, the
wireless companies want to increase the amount of gear in tower equipment
compounds,  adding at least (potentially noisy) generators.

In North Carolina the wireless industry has already secured a law ( HB 664
passed June 2013)  which allows existing towers to be substantially modified
(increasing more than 10% in height, with 20ft horizontal appurtenances, and
equipment compounds expanded more than 2500 sq.ft).  It's not clear whether
this is a "one-time ticket" (one expansion per tower, over the life of the
tower); even if it is, there's no reason the General Assembly can't allow
another round of "tickets" in two years.  

Amendment TC1200013 carries over from the existing ordinance rules and types
of Wireless Facilities (WCFs) described in 1 and 2 below; #3 is "the new kid
on the block." 

1.       Attached  non-concealed -This type WCF is not to more than 20 feet
above the transmission tower or light stanchion to which it is attached; an
attached concealed WCF facility is to  be designed to match the existing
structure to which it is affixed.   Both attached WCFs require only
administrative approval.

2.	Tall non-concealed freestanding towers (typically capped at 199ft)
and concealed freestanding towers (simulating trees, flagpoles, etc, capped
at 120ft). The maximum height depends on the zoning. The non-concealed
towers require a quasi-judicial approval process before the Board of
Adjustment (Minor Special Use). Concealed towers have had
administrative-only approval. Only a non-concealed WCF proposed within 300ft
of a designated NC scenic by-way requires approval by an elected body (Major
Special Use).
3.	Short (under 60') freestanding concealed towers (still fake pine
trees, flagpoles, etc) is a new height category - though the  definition of
"short" may be up to 75' by the time the ordinance is passed.  To encourage
short towers, Planning alone approves them.

CELL TOWER FEEDBACK REQUESTED:  With the new short tower, the proposed
ordinance appears to have listened to residents' criticism of the super-tree
towers, or planners themselves assume that a lot of small concealed towers
are more desirable throughout the city than a smaller number of tall ones.
What the wireless industry wants:  To answer consumer demand and maintain
market share carriers and the tower companies want tall towers; the new
state law reflects this pressure and endorses generous upsizing of existing
and new-built towers. What do neighborhoods want?  Can you live with 100
small towers designed to be hidden in clusters of trees in Durham, or 25
tall ones not concerned to be camouflaged?  Perhaps the CONTEXT is the
determinant.let tall towers sit where they can be mistaken for steeples, or
poles, or in transition zones and in planned developments and put shorter
ones into already built neighborhoods??  

BEFORE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TURNS INTO LAW, talk with neighbors about how
to resolve in cell tower deployment the tensions between protecting the
safety and aesthetics of a neighborhood and satisfying personal and
professional wireless appetites.  Shoot comments, questions to Donna Rudolph
pisco at nc.rr.com or Pat Carstensen pats1717 at hotmail.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

SEPT.4, 2013 LOCAL POLICYMAKERS RESPONDED to neighborhoods' requests that
Durham engage residents when cell towers seek deployment in residential
zones (Remember INC's May 25 Resolution and August 2
reminder-of-concerns-letter to City Council and County Commissioners ?  (See
INC's May & Aug minutes) 

 
HOW DOES AMENDMENT TC1200013 (regulating Cell Towers), presented at Joint
City-County Planning Committee Sept 4, respond to INC concerns about the
tower approval process, safety, aesthetics and land-use priorities in
residential areas?  

1. a) The approval process. The Amendment makes the tower approval process
look more citizen-friendly: It allows notification and public hearing for
residential zone towers 61-120ft tall. However, it retains
administrative-only approval by the Planning Director for concealed towers
up to 60ft., even in the face of the 2013 state law (HB664) that allows
towers to be substantially modified (more than 10% in height, with 20ft
horizontal appurtenances, and equipment compounds expanded more than 2500
sq.ft) and knowing that tower industry spokespersons recently declared 60ft
towers aren't useful so soon would be upsized.  

1. b) INC has already concluded from its UDO study that the approval of any
freestanding cell tower-concealed or otherwise-in a residential zone should
be the province of quasi-judicial (Board of Adjustment) or legislative
entities (council or commissioners) entailing notification and hearings at
the front of the cell tower approval process.

       2.a) Safety:  Setbacks and Fall Zones are too limited. Fixed,
non-negotiable setbacks like 300ft from residences would be more realistic
for the new reality of expandable towers.  Minimum setbacks from underground
utilities like high pressure gas lines are missing.  Not having explicit
safety criteria raises two concerns: whoever approves tower siting will have
insufficient grounds to reject towers that just don't work, and exceptions
granted on setback requirements must be based on real safety criteria.

           2.b) Safety. Liability insurance for tower ownership
accountability is dismissed as if lightning doesn't arc from the highest
point to surrounding structures--homes, schools, churches.

             3.a)  Aesthetics.  Tower site dimensions and categories
(concealed) are confusing and fluid; towers are assigned a site of 500 sq ft
which includes a 13ft border of trees (on all sides?);  yet what happens to
the cluster of trees buffer and to concealment when a tower rises, spreads
its protuberances, and upsizes its compound 2,500 sq ft.?  What happens as
the trees age out?  How does this tree-disguise zone interact with screening
requirements?  

            3.b)  Aesthetics.  The amendment appears to reduce who merits
concern over a tower's visibility to only adjacent (touching) property,
whereas surrounding property owners within sight of a tower are also
impacted by it. Aesthetics seem judged on intent--if a tower is designed to
be concealed it is--rather than on harmony of tower with uses at the site.
Missing in this text is inviting property owners within 1000ft of a tower to
a balloon test to verify visibility.

FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, CHECK OUT the Amendment at Durham Planning's site,
<http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Documents/UDO_Text_Amendments/Pending_Text_
Amendments/Attachment%201_TC1200013>
http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Documents/UDO_Text_Amendments/Pending_Text_A
mendments/Attachment 1_TC1200013.     Shoot your questions or comments to
Donna Rudolph, Eagles' Pointe, Durham,  <mailto:pisco at nc.rr.com>
pisco at nc.rr.com
9-24-13

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130924/0e5d8b14/attachment.html>