Public comments sought on proposed cell tower ordinance

By Lisa Majors-Duff

For some seven months, county planning board members have been at work drafting the proposed "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" ordinance, the purpose of which, as outlined in the document, is to not only make wireless communications available to Jackson County citizens, but to ensure that in doing so the "scenic and visual character of Jackson County" is preserved. In attempting to do that, the ordinance is proposed to regulate the location and architectural design of cell towers "to minimize their visibility from public places, to avoid intrusion into public vistas, to avoid disruption of natural environments and to insure harmony and compatibility with surrounding land use patterns and the overall character and nature of the community..." Public safety and an attempt to discourage skyline cell tower placements are also listed as purposes for the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance outlines in detail the requirements for obtaining a permit to construct a cell tower, including the release of the company's propagation studies, which prove the site being proposed is essential to providing wireless service within the county. Applicants would also be required to explain any reasons that would limit or exclude another companies from co-location on their towers. If no such limitations exist, applicants must agree to negotiate in good faith with other telecommunications companies to allow for co-location.

Other requirements of an applicant would include a detailed description of all security measures to be installed at the site; the number, type, color and design of the tower; the frequency, modulation and class of service or other transmitting equipment; and a description of adjacent land and property owners.

Under the section titled "Facility Standards and Requirements," additional direction is provided to those seeking a permit to construction a cell tower.

"The most important criteria for placing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in Jackson County is visibility," the document says. "The definition of a well-placed (cell tower) is one that does not draw attention and is virtually invisible to most viewers. A poorly placed (cell tower) is one that draws attention to its location or placement in the visual landscape. The degree to which a (cell tower) can be made least noticeable or invisible is the most important evaluation standard."

To better visualize the end result of new cell tower construction, the proposed ordinance calls for an applicant to conduct a "balloon test" at the site for public inspection. A brightly colored balloon of at least 3 feet in diameter must be flown to the maximum of height of the proposed tower on three separate occasions for six hours at a time.

New towers would not be permitted if their proposed location or height would require lighting or painting to satisfy Federal Aviation Administration rules. The proposed ordinance also calls for adequate road access to a site.

"Road construction shall at all times minimize ground disturbance and vegetation cutting," the document says. "Road grades shall closely follow natural contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil sedimentation and erosion."

Under "Site Selection," the document continues to advocate for co-location by strongly suggesting wireless communication facilities be placed on existing structures. It also says facilities should be placed in existing commercial development areas.

The proposal strongly advocates against placing cell towers on mountain ridges requiring a height of more than 20 feet above the existing tree canopy; in a location that would require more than a quarter of an acre of land to be cleared; or within view of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places, along a scenic by-way or in view of the Blue Ridge Parkway. If any of these criteria cannot be met, an applicant must explain in writing why an "opportunity area" is not available.

"The inability to completely eliminate or fill in a gap in service from a single facility shall not be deemed reason for locating on a site of lower priority than required by (the above) section," the documents says.

The document further endorses co-location under the section titled "Tower Construction." "All new (cell towers) shall be designed and constructed to accommodate future demand and co-location of at least five additional wireless telecommunication facilities," it says.

Also, towers must be monopole in design with no guy wires or lattice construction allowed. All support equipment must be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and must be maintained in good appearance and repair.

A fall zone must also be provided around the base of a new tower, allowing for 110 percent of the tower's height. The fall zone must be set back from the property lines by at least 25 feet. Once the county's ordinance administrator has determined that an application is complete, it would be forwarded to Monroe Communication, a company under contract with the county to serve as a technical consultant for cell tower application reviews.

Also with the proposed ordinance, existing towers would be required to come into compliance within five years. Some modifications of a tower, including increases in height, size, shape or appearance, could require it to come into compliance sooner.

At least one industry representative has already voiced concerns with the proposed ordinance. Gary Pennington, an attorney representing Crown Castle International, presented commissioners with a document containing 23 separate points of contention.

Among his complaints with the proposed ordinance is the requirement that existing towers come into compliance.

"It will be impossible to make existing towers comply with every element of the proposed ordinance," Pennington's document says. "This could require the removal and reconstruction of existing towers. This is not a fair requirement."

Pennington also alleges the requirement that towers not be lit is illegal.

"By not allowing lighting, Jackson County is effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services in these limited areas," he says. "Lighting technology has advanced such that a tower can be lighted with no impact on surrounding residential areas."

Other complaints voiced by Pennington include the provision that allows the consultant the right to deny or approve applications; an approval process he describes as "overly complicated"; the burden to inform surrounding property owners when a tower is proposed; and the balloon test. Pennington further complained that the "stealth" technology requirement to limit tower visability cannot be used in all cases.

"Carriers cannot and will not build an effective network to provide wireless services to the citizens of Jackson County if this is the requirement," his document states.

Finally, Pennington states that the proposed fee schedule is "excessive."

Though not intended to be adopted with the ordinance, planning board members did suggest a fee schedule for cell tower applications. Fees are broken down into tower construction categories, with $4,100 required for category D (upgrading an existing tower) and $10,900 for new tower construction. Fees are proposed in accordance with Monroe's costs to administer the ordinance.

Back to Archive: 03/14/02.