Minutes - 19960528 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations. ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company, which used to be Sprint Cellular, made reference to several sections and made comments. (1) 8.8.17a.1 requires "a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200 feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 114 mile. He has no problems with providing any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information on towers outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the number of towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range. (2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all existing towers in the search range and assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas' transmitters and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower." He said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want it only if it is relevant. For example, if a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a commercially reasonable rate, it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are fairly detailed and expensive engineer studies. (3) 6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance - Principal Uses - to his knowledge, this is the only County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation. With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property owners. An easement is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased. BARRY JACOBS, Caretaker of Moorefields in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their efforts in regulating these towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal with a request on one of their water tanks, which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the requirements for "Unreasonable Interference with View". He suggested that the wording "significant adverse impact" be used instead of "Unreasonable". He suggested that under the "Special Use Permit Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property may not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration under a Special Use Permit. The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is maintained is subjective. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help visualize how high the tower would be and what it may impact from that height. With reference to health effects, they found that there are no proven health risk from communication towers. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 5, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Willhoit asked that the communication companies be requested to provide information on the health impact of communication towers - - what the standards are, energy level, and if they are directional or focused and the power level compared to the standard. Mr. Benshoff added that what the Communications Act of 1996 does is establish a safety standard. It does not take the County out of the business of regulating it. It says that the American National Standards Institute, the Institute that sets safety guidelines for everything from towers to bicycle helmets, has established a safety standard where all this evidence we have been referring to indicates it is safe. What the Telecommunications Act says is that the County must look at this standard and use that standard and so long as the facility meets that standard, that it is the standard applicable for local governments. ADJOURNMENT