[Durham INC] Concerning Cell-Towers and the Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday

[Tom Miller]

Dear All:

 

The cell-tower ordinance rewrite is a complicated document with many
variables and moving parts.  The planning staff has worked under
considerable pressure to create a set of rules for Durham that that meets
the requirements of the FCC and State law and satisfies the concerns of
neighborhoods and the industry.   INC has been concerned about a number of
issues including tower height, setbacks, screening, safety, and insurance.
We have also been insistent that when a cell tower, whether concealed or
non-concealed I to be located in a residential neighborhood, neighbors
should be notified and have an opportunity to be heard.  In Durham, in the
cell tower context, the preferred public review is before the board of
adjustment on an application for a use permit.  The Planning Department has
been sensitive to this demand realizing all the while that the industry
prefers a faster, simpler administrative review which does not involve
public notice or a hearing.

 

Concerning this new draft:

 

a)            The new draft says that concealed freestanding WCfs only
require administrative approval; but it also says that all monopines and
unipoles of any height require a use permit from the board of adjustment.
Only other, non-specified freestanding concealed WCFs under 60 feet in
height at time of approval can get by with administrative approval.
Currently, we are not aware of another commonly used form of concealed cell
tower.  This means that in all but very unusual circumstances, approval of
freestanding concealed cell towers in residential neighborhoods will occur
only after notice to neighbors and a hearing before the Board of Adjustment.

 

b)            The max height for concealed towers in all residential zones
except Rural Residential will be the maximum height in the underlying
residential district plus 20 feet. To understand this, it is useful to know
that the maximum height in single-family districts is 35 feet. In the Rural
Residential the maximum height for a concealed cell tower would be 120 feet
under the new draft.  Much of Durham County is zoned RR.  The district
allows residential and agricultural uses.  The district is mostly confined
to the rural tier, but there is some RR zoning in the suburban tier.

 

c)            All non-concealed towers, monopines and unipoles must have a
use permit from the Board of Adjustment.  This means notice to neighbors and
an opportunity to be heard before the Board of Adjustment.

 

d)            The max height for non-concealed towers will be 180 feet in
non R-zones.  It will be 120 feet in RS-20 and RR.  Such towers are not
allowed at all in all other residential zones.  

 

e)            The setback for all freestanding WCFs is 120% of tower height
or 85 feet, whichever may be greater.  This applies even to non-concealed
towers in RR and RS-20 which must reside on a 5 acre parcel.  When a
freestanding WCF of any sort is in an R-zone, the setback cannot be reduced.
The setback for towers located in non-R zones can be reduced with a permit
from the board of adjustment.

 

INC would like for the draft to be changed to say that when a cell tower of
any kind is located in an RR district in the suburban tier, the maximum
height allowed will be the maximum height in the district (35') plus 20
feet.  This will treat most neighborhoods in the RR zone the same as other
suburban neighborhoods.  This is the message I believe you should take to
the Planning Commission as this proposed ordinance moves forward.

 

Our thanks go to Michael Stock of the Planning Department staff who has so
patiently worked with us over the last few months.  Among our fellow at INC,
thanks go to Donna Rudolph, Dolly Fehrenbacher, Pat Carstensen, and Philip
Azar who have poured over and unraveled the provisions of each draft and
puzzled all the "what-ifs" necessary to understand this new law and predict
how it will work.  Even today, Donna has been studying the draft ordinance
again to make sure our understanding is correct.

 

Finally, thank you, INC delegates who have devoted so much attention to this
issue.

 

Tom Miller

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20150306/142a0102/attachment.html>