Plan Commission OKs Communication Tower Ordinance Amendment
November 5, 2020 at 2:59 a.m.
By David [email protected]
The commissioners will decide on it at their 9 a.m. Nov. 24 meeting.
According to a copy of the ordinance amendment, “Communication towers, both private and public, may be permitted in those districts as listed in Table A. For those locations which require exception approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals, petitions shall include and be accompanied by” a site plan, list of all future structures to be on the site, a legal description for the tract of ground and leased area where applicable, description of any screening, a map and/or list of the nearest towers to the proposed location and any additional information required by the BZA.
The ordinance previously stated that the towers “may be permitted by exception before the BZA” in allowed districts.
The districts where the towers would be permitted uses under the amended ordinance would include environmental, public use, agricultural, commercial, limited industrial and light industrial.
The districts where the towers would be exception uses would include agricultural II and residential. Commercial solar energy system farms also would be added under heavy industrial (I-3) under exceptional uses, according to the amendment.
The amended ordinance also states, “Towers and accessory structures for said towers, except those defined as public improvements, may be located no closer than a distance equal to the height of the tower to any structure not associated with the tower itself or on the same property as the tower so long as written consent from the property owner is provided. Towers and accessory structures for said towers defined as public improvements must meet the required district setbacks as defined” in the ordinance.
No new towers, “except those defined as public improvements,” may be constructed within two miles of an existing tower, without BZA approval. This excludes electric transmission towers.
All towers and associated structures must be fenced in.
The ordinance amendment defines public improvement as “any improvement, facility or service together with its associated site, accessories or right-of-way necessary to provide transportation, drainage, utilities or similar essential services and facilities and that are solely owned and operated by a governmental agency.
Assistant Planner Matt Sandy said the Plan Commission meeting on the ordinance amendment was advertised and that the ordinance goes hand-in-hand with the county commissioners’ communication tower project.
“A lot of public projects don’t require hearings because they’re done under what’s called public improvement,” he said. “So when you’re looking at the ordinance amendment, essentially what we have done through this amendment is try to address communication towers as public improvements.”
What that means, Sandy said, is that if a tower is being installed for such a purpose – either emergency services, broadband, etc. – and the tower is owned by a government entity and operated by a government entity, it becomes public improvement.
Typically, when someone wants to put a communication tower up, there has to be a hearing before the BZA to see if the tower meets all the requirements, he said.
“Recognizing that these type of communication towers have been discussed through the commissioners’ project and the emergency service project are of a different nature and are actually to service the public, we’ve tried to help,” he said.
Dr. Lee Harman, president of the Plan Commission, asked, “Will this, as an example, be a help to some of our elementary schools, maybe in a rural area, in terms of getting the WiFi access kids will use? Is that part of this?”
Plan Commission member Kevin McSherry said as far as eLearning goes, yes. “This is the first step in the infrastructure to deliver that,” he said.
County Surveyor Mike Kissinger asked, “So the government can go ahead and put a tower within the fall range of residential structures, but nobody else can? There was a concern on that.” Sandy said yes and referred him to the ordinance.
Kissinger said these are 300-400-foot towers, taller than most, and they’re supposed to fall on themselves. McSherry said that’s correct, that’s what they’re designed to do, but in the case of a tornado, “no one is going to sign their names to that.”
Asked where the three communication towers are going to go that the county is working on, McSherry said at the county highway department, Claypool Elementary School and south of the old Sidney school.
McSherry made the motion to recommend the county commissioners approve the ordinance amendment and it was unanimously approved.
The commissioners will decide on it at their 9 a.m. Nov. 24 meeting.
According to a copy of the ordinance amendment, “Communication towers, both private and public, may be permitted in those districts as listed in Table A. For those locations which require exception approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals, petitions shall include and be accompanied by” a site plan, list of all future structures to be on the site, a legal description for the tract of ground and leased area where applicable, description of any screening, a map and/or list of the nearest towers to the proposed location and any additional information required by the BZA.
The ordinance previously stated that the towers “may be permitted by exception before the BZA” in allowed districts.
The districts where the towers would be permitted uses under the amended ordinance would include environmental, public use, agricultural, commercial, limited industrial and light industrial.
The districts where the towers would be exception uses would include agricultural II and residential. Commercial solar energy system farms also would be added under heavy industrial (I-3) under exceptional uses, according to the amendment.
The amended ordinance also states, “Towers and accessory structures for said towers, except those defined as public improvements, may be located no closer than a distance equal to the height of the tower to any structure not associated with the tower itself or on the same property as the tower so long as written consent from the property owner is provided. Towers and accessory structures for said towers defined as public improvements must meet the required district setbacks as defined” in the ordinance.
No new towers, “except those defined as public improvements,” may be constructed within two miles of an existing tower, without BZA approval. This excludes electric transmission towers.
All towers and associated structures must be fenced in.
The ordinance amendment defines public improvement as “any improvement, facility or service together with its associated site, accessories or right-of-way necessary to provide transportation, drainage, utilities or similar essential services and facilities and that are solely owned and operated by a governmental agency.
Assistant Planner Matt Sandy said the Plan Commission meeting on the ordinance amendment was advertised and that the ordinance goes hand-in-hand with the county commissioners’ communication tower project.
“A lot of public projects don’t require hearings because they’re done under what’s called public improvement,” he said. “So when you’re looking at the ordinance amendment, essentially what we have done through this amendment is try to address communication towers as public improvements.”
What that means, Sandy said, is that if a tower is being installed for such a purpose – either emergency services, broadband, etc. – and the tower is owned by a government entity and operated by a government entity, it becomes public improvement.
Typically, when someone wants to put a communication tower up, there has to be a hearing before the BZA to see if the tower meets all the requirements, he said.
“Recognizing that these type of communication towers have been discussed through the commissioners’ project and the emergency service project are of a different nature and are actually to service the public, we’ve tried to help,” he said.
Dr. Lee Harman, president of the Plan Commission, asked, “Will this, as an example, be a help to some of our elementary schools, maybe in a rural area, in terms of getting the WiFi access kids will use? Is that part of this?”
Plan Commission member Kevin McSherry said as far as eLearning goes, yes. “This is the first step in the infrastructure to deliver that,” he said.
County Surveyor Mike Kissinger asked, “So the government can go ahead and put a tower within the fall range of residential structures, but nobody else can? There was a concern on that.” Sandy said yes and referred him to the ordinance.
Kissinger said these are 300-400-foot towers, taller than most, and they’re supposed to fall on themselves. McSherry said that’s correct, that’s what they’re designed to do, but in the case of a tornado, “no one is going to sign their names to that.”
Asked where the three communication towers are going to go that the county is working on, McSherry said at the county highway department, Claypool Elementary School and south of the old Sidney school.
McSherry made the motion to recommend the county commissioners approve the ordinance amendment and it was unanimously approved.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092