Minutes - 20020826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

to the public that addresses all electromagnetic concerns, etc. He said that recent information is that there is more electromagnetic radiation in your house than what emanates from these towers. Renee Price asked about the health concerns of the residents versus the Planning Department's health information and if there is a conflict. Craig Benedict said that there was general nationwide information about the health risks associated with towers of this type and that the general health risks are weighed against the criteria within the ordinance and the provision of telecommunication facilities in a neighborhood are the primary concerns of promoting new towers. Renee Price asked about the end of moratorium and Craig Benedict said that it ends on September 6`h. On September 17`h, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the new ordinance, there could be some applications that have been submitted between that time. The new ordinance requires that these applications that have not been acted upon would fall under the new ordinance. Renee Price asked about the reviews within the ordinance and if existing towers would be subject to review and Craig Benedict said no. These reviews are for new towers only. Renee Price asked if these existing towers can be added to the reviews and he said that the Board of County Commissioners would have to make that determination. Ted Treibel made reference to tower inspections on page 13, item 'b' and said that he does not think you get a valid inspection from the ground and that the wording needs to be changed. He said that you need to check up closely and not only from the ground. Craig Benedict noted this. Jay Bryan asked if a strobe light could be prohibited under certain circumstances. Craig Benedict said that at less than 200 feet you could possibly prohibit them but a lot of these items are under FAA. Public Comment Gary Pennington, who was representing Verizon Wireless, distributed a hand out with four issues. He stated that Verizon has over 30 million customers and is committed to providing quality service. Regarding general issues about the industry, he said that we are becoming a wireless society. In order to implement this, it is going to be necessary to build the infrastructure to support this use. Presently, over 115 million people are using wireless communications in the United States today. He said that every day over 100,000 calls are made to 911 using wireless phones. Regarding the ordinance, he asked that the County work with the industry and not make it so overly difficult that the growth of the technology is suppressed. He thinks that the ordinance is well written, but he gave some written comments. He said that the industry likes objective criteria so that they know what to expect with the application process. In some instances, the cost to prepare an application could range between $30,000-50,000. He requested that one body hear the tower applications —the Board of Adjustment - which has more experience in hearing such matters as these. He said that it was always his preference to be before a non-partisan board so that a technical application is heard by a technical board. He made reference to the limitations on the hearing dates and asked that the application process not be limited to only twice a year. Another point is co-location and he said that he would like to see a separate part of the ordinance that deals explicitly with the co-location process. He said that Verizon does encourage co- location. He said that the reality is that in order to provide the coverage needed for this technology, new towers will need to be built. Liz Hill with American Tower commented on the application fee and she stated that this is ten times over any other project. She said that since the bulk of the application fee is for the consultant, it might work to put the $9,000 into an escrow fund for the consultant to draw off of. Then if it does not take $9,000 the industry would not have to pay the full amount. Her other concerns were with tower ownership and tower maintenance. She asked if the periodic review would apply to all towers in existence now, or only towers built under this ordinance. She does not know of any other place that requires a 36-month structural analysis. She said that if a carrier has co-located on a tower, or if the tower has had a structural modification in the 36 months, then a structural analysis would have been required anyway. She made reference to visual inspections and asked if this would be included in the 36-month structural analysis. Since there would be a full review every 36 months, then why have other inspections during the year unless something critical happens. She then spoke about the financial