BOA minutes 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3113117 1 Susan Halkiotis: I have a question because I was a little confused as to how that can't be part of 2 the decision since one of the findings of fact mentions public health. It seems contradictory. 3 4 Michael Harvey: I think part of it might be a comment made by Ms. Goode at the beginning of the 5 meeting and part of it may also be I want to remind you what's on page 122 of the staff packet 6 where we stick concerns. Questions were asked during the balloon test about the impacts of 7 electromagnetic radiation. And staff's comment is the Federal Government has found there is no 8 conclusive evidence demonstrated that telecommunication towers generate harmful radiation or 9 have an impact with individuals overall health. Section 5.10.8.4 sub section V requires all SUP to 10 include a condition that the "Electromagnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with 11 requirements to the FCC, that's Federal Communications Commission, regarding an emission of 12 electromagnetic radiation" This is a mandatory condition of the telecommunication tower permit. 13 So we will respond to a question about electromagnetic radiation. I won't speak for what Ms. 14 Goode was talking to, but I think Mr. Katz had gleamed on what we said on page 122, which is 15 consistent with our UDO. I wanted to make sure everyone remembered that. 16 17 Barry Katz: Yes, exactly. 18 19 Laura Goode: I want to just clarify that statement I made earlier. I'm referring to 47 USC 332, 20 specifically sections C7 and it states that no state or local government or instrumentality thereof 21 may regulate the placement, construction, and modification or personal wireless facilities on the 22 basis of environmental effects, of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities 23 comply with commissions regulations concerning such emissions. I was talking to the specific 24 health concerns raised in the letter submittal. 25 26 Matt Hughes: So basically that piece of Federal Law is basic civics. The Federal government says 27 we can't do it, therefore no matter what we say locally we can't do it. 28 29 Laura Goode: As to definition, that's correct. 30 31 John Price: I have a little different take on that. I don't think this Board can deny to permit on the 32 basis of enviromental hazard or health hazards on that basis. That does not mean the Board is 33 restricted from considering that in reaching this decision in so far as the policies and goals of the 34 Board are stated. 35 36 Michael Harvey: And we also state that State law says the same thing. You cannot establish a 37 regulatory standard for something that you're preempted from doing. The FCC has preempted you 38 essentially from doing that. They have established what the gauge level is, as Mr. Price is correct, 39 that can't be a basis for decision for denial, which is why it's a mandatory condition from our UDO. 40 And as referenced under State law. 41 42 Barry Katz: So were there any other environmental hazards that you are eluding to with that 43 statement? Was there anything else besides the electromagnetic wave radiation? Are there other OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 21 of 156