An Alternative to Skyline Blight

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING October 28, 2008.
Advertisements

How to Write Goals, Objectives and Policies EAR-Based Amendment Forum Presented by the Pinellas Planning Council September 14, 2006.
PARKS: Major Policy Topics  Park development guidelines  Joint use of park and recreation facilities  Park accessibility  Park acquisition priorities.
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE. What the discussion should include: 4 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO) allow local governments to deny.
June 5, 2007 BCC Called Public Hearing on BZA #SE , April 5, 2007 APPLICANT: Genesis Communications, Inc.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
City Council Meeting January 18, Background  Staff receiving increasing number of inquiries regarding installation of wireless telecommunications.
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
Zoning 101 Key principles, components and processes Dh 2005.
Zoning The legislative division of an area into separate districts with different regulations within each district for land use, building size, and the.
October 4, 2004 Detrich B. Allen City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department 1 Siting New Development Detrich B. Allen General Manager Environmental.
1 Preservation Parcels Investigation Report to the Board of County Commissioners September 19, :30 PM.
Presentation to the German Village Historic Preservation Committee August 22, 2013.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING December 2, 2008.
BCC Public Hearing for consideration of an Agreement to Offer Donation of Real Property -and- a Solid Waste Management Permit Renewal APPLICANT: Hubbard.
Mesa City Council Presentation October 2, PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF UTILITIES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS Water Resources.
Summit #1 San Juan County Shoreline Master Program Update March 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd
Wind Energy Educational Meeting January 20, 2004 Manhattan, Kansas PLANNING & ZONING ISSUES Presenter: David L. Yearout, AICP Planning Consultant Baughman.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING February 19, 2008.
Positive Train Control Infrastructure: Section 106 Review Process under the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s May 2014 Program Comment For More.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING September 1, 2009.
Environmental Management System Definitions
April 9, 2011 Mike Wieszchowski, P.E., PTOE Professional Traffic Operations Engineer Road Use Planning Guidelines to Protect Your Roadways.
Community Development Department FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT SMALL-SCALE LU-MIN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-OTH
DC Zoning Review Historic Structures Working Group DC Office of Planning Meeting 1 March 13, 2008.
November 11, 2008 BCC PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #SE , September 4, 2008 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Christian Haitian Church, Inc.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
Comprehensive Plan Update. General, far-reaching vision to benefit the whole community Takes a long term view of issues Focuses on physical development.
 Personal Concept ◦ Travel to this meeting ◦ Life Insurance  Business Concept ◦ Inventory/product management ◦ Profit/loss mix  Public Concept ◦ Deciding.
Rezoning Application # Use Permit # Use Permit # City Council May 14, Tide Mill Lane Communications Tower & Tree Farm.
“State Road 100 MPC Lots” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning City Council Public Hearing November 17, 2015.
Community Development Department FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT SMALL-SCALE LU-MIN-07-03a & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-OTH
1 City of Portland City Council Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Land Use Hearings Officer’s Decision Presentation by BDS Staff: Mark Walhood, City Planner.
Hillsborough County Public School Siting MPO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
Getting Prepared October 2016 District Meetings
BLM Decision Making Process
Clarendon Town Plan 2015 Barbara Noyes Pulling
Town of Fuquay-Varina Planning Board
OPEN SPACE/ CONSERVATION
Kennett Township land Stewardship Initiative
commercial zoning Expansion Initiative
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Scoping Meeting April 20th 6:00 pm
Site Plan Control By-law
8/23/2016 Luis N. Serna, AICP David, Healey, FAICP
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Economic Development & Housing Committee August 21, 2017
ZTA Historic Inns and Restaurants (Clifton)
Draft Transportation Element September 6, 2017
Chapter 13 Governance and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Schools By Delis Corke EDU /30/13.
common legal mechanisms of environmental PROTECTION
MPO School Transportation Working Group
Shaping the future of Laverstock and Ford Parish
Consideration of Action Re: Commercial Cannabis Businesses
Creating a P.L Plan.
Community Design Advisory Committee
METHOD VALIDATION: AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS
Las Pilitas Quarry - Continued Hearing
Planning Commission Meeting: August 3, 2016
Importance of Law and Policies in the Environmental Management System
Purpose & Need Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
NPA 450/579 (Area Code) Relief in Quebec
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Roles and Responsibilities
Mentors & Field Supervisors
Roles and Responsibilities
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Washoe County Board of Adjustment June 6, 2019
What is the Wireless Bylaw?
Overlay Districts Presented by: Zina Lagonegro Manager of Zoning
Presentation transcript:

An Alternative to Skyline Blight An effective and rational policy for providing personal wireless services in Baltimore County, Maryland An Alternative to Skyline Blight An effective and rational policy for providing wireless services in Baltimore County, Maryland Presented By The Valleys Planning Council, Inc. Presented by The Valleys Planning Council, Inc.

Longnecker Road Overlooking Worthington Valley Baltimore County . . . Two-thirds of Baltimore County is rural Land of magnificent vistas Place of rich history Maintained through private stewardship Governed by a solid tradition of planning and zoning Longnecker Road Overlooking Worthington Valley

Introduction This policy for personal wireless service facilities is based on the following: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Baltimore County’s zoning authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities (“cell towers”). As stewards of the land, County residents have the responsibility to preserve Baltimore’s natural scenic and historical resources. This policy is intended to help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understand planning and zoning for personal wireless service facilities.

Purpose, Principles & Intended Achievements The purpose of the personal wireless service facilities policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to recommend standards and approaches for Baltimore County to use in the review of personal wireless services facility applications. Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this policy in preparing applications for personal wireless service facilities. The Office of Information and Technology, Office of Planning and the Tower Review Committee should follow this policy when evaluating personal wireless service facility applications. Any deviation from the policy must be clearly and professionally documented.

Regulations based on the following principles are recommended: The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Baltimore County is visibility. Baltimore County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application to enable the County to measure the visibility of a facility. The less a personal wireless service facility can be seen, the more likely it is that it will be approved. Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied unless mitigated, sited, located and designed so as to minimize visibility.

Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites. Typical Opportunity Sites are commercial and manufacturing zones. Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should demonstrate why they could not be located in an Opportunity Site. Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal wireless service facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance Area.

A successful personal wireless service facilities policy will achieve the following: Protection of Baltimore County scenic resources A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants Equal evaluation and review for all applicants The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility applications

Summary of Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy This policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The policy encourages the construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community. Visibility is the primary focus in the review of personal wireless service facilities. Facilities with limited visibility are encouraged. Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline and they should be provided with an adequate backdrop so that they are not skylined. Personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible. Sensitivity of design should be the expected norm when locating personal wireless service facilities.

Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district. Ground-based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the area. Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility. The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wireless service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible.

Owings Mills Cell Towers The County supports co-location of personal wireless service facilities provided that it has no negligible adverse visual impact. The site below, while skylined and much taller than adjacent buildings and trees, does not allow for the use of an existing facility. Skylining of new facilities should be prohibited. Owings Mills Cell Towers

Some wireless carriers want to serve County residents with tall towers Owings Mills Cell Tower

Can you locate the wireless facility sites in this photograph ? When personal wireless service facility sites are smaller, they are not as easily seen, even though there may be more of them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and State Law give localities the choice. Charlottesville, Virginia Can you locate the wireless facility sites in this photograph ? Hint: There are three cell towers

See them now ?

Charlottesville, Virginia Doesn’t Baltimore County deserve this? Charlottesville, Virginia

Can you locate the cell tower? A Worthington Valley Farm

Do you prefer this? Or this?

This policy could not have been proposed without help from the Albemarle County, Virginia Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. Special Appreciation to the Albemarle County, Virginia Planning Staff.