Cell tower moratorium to require second vote

By Lisa Majors-Duff

The effort was unsuccessful due to the absence of two board members ­ Stacy Buchanan and Conrad Burrell ­ though those board members in attendance voted 3-0 in favor of the ordinance imposing a moratorium.

A unanimous decision of the full board is required to enact an ordinance on its first reading, according to county attorney Raymond Large. The issue will be brought up again at the Thursday, Aug. 2, meeting, said board Chairman Jay Denton.

This latest government-imposed suspension of activity deals with cell tower construction, which county officials are proposing not to allow for 90 days. During this time, county planning board members will be asked to make a recommendation about future of telecommunication towers in Jackson County.

Commissioners met with members of their planning board last week (July 19) and one representative of the wireless telecommunication industry to discuss their options. The meeting was called after a group of Cashiers residents appealed to county leaders to prevent the construction of a cell tower on Laurel Knob. One resident was even willing to pay any legal fees the county might incur by imposing a moratorium designed to stop the tower.

That tower, erected by SBA Towers Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., was completed earlier this month. Another owned by the same company went up near Blantons Branch on U.S. 74 at nearly the same time.

"We need to be friendly with our cell towers. Anyone in business needs them," Commissioner Burrell said during the July 19 work session with the planning board. "On the other hand, we need some restrictions on height and other things. I think the planning board should work out the details."

Tamera Crisp, the county's director of planning and economic development, reminded commissioners that the planning board had submitted a proposal to regulate cell towers about a year ago. The recommendation was that the county contract with Metrosite, a company that negotiates with telecommunications companies to locate their towers on government property. Metrosite earns a percentage of the tower lease fees.

But other companies provide similar services free of charge, said Gary Pennington, a South Carolina attorney representing Crown Castle International.

"Metrosite might not work here since the county does not own property everywhere a tower is needed," Pennington said. "Crown Castle can help you with the education process and help you write an ordinance, a good ordinance that's friendly to the cell tower industry and the citizens' needs."

"We can start over if you want," Crisp said of the planning board's review of the industry. Planning Board Chairman Jack Debnam agreed that starting from scratch might be best for his board since several new members have been added since the first recommendation was made. "Bringing the board up to speed is a priority," Debnam said. "I'd like to see us produce an ordinance that the county can use for a long time."

"I agree," Chairman Denton said. "I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction to something that needs to be thought through."

Commissioner Crawford wanted to know how long the planning board would require to complete its assigned task.

"If we don't do a moratorium, how many (cell towers) will go up while we're working on it?" she asked. "I don't want to stop everything in Jackson County. We've got a moratorium on asphalt plants, and now we're thinking about one on cell towers."

"Let's try 90 days. We can always extend it if we need to," Debnam said. "It might make the public and the industry feel better to know that we are trying."

"Ninety days is very doable," Pennington said. "As far as a moratorium is concerned, though, I would request that you allow for replacement towers and co-location so that you don't stop business."

The proposed moratorium drafted by attorney Large and based on one enacted in Henderson County prohibits the construction of commercial wireless telecommunication towers for 90 days. Exceptions include reconstruction of existing towers provided the new towers do not exceed the height of the previous tower, co-location on existing towers, towers constructed by governmental agencies and those intended for non-commercial use.

A variance is included to address "situations where a severe hardship may arise."

Back to Archive: 07/26/01.