Commission Tackles Cell Tower Setbacks

How far cell phone towers should be from local schools, parks and residences was once again the focus of a Planning Commission discussion on Thursday.

The topic is part of the broader effort toward revising the city's wireless communication ordinance.

Commissioners also reviewed a list of recommendations from the public and city staff—voting to cut some suggestions from the previous draft revisions, and changing language in several places to make the points more clear and binding—before they are sent to the City Council for final approval.

Commission Chair Martha Scott Fritz asked whether the setback distance should be an actual number or should be determined by circumstance.

Assistant City Attorney, Holly Whatley, said a consultant or specialist should be appointed to provide the practical effects of a given number.

“One of the issues we need to be cautious about when we pick a number is that the practical effect of that doesn’t result in a location where no tower can be placed,” she said.

Indicating the problems with a 1,500-foot setback limit, Community Development Director, Maureen Tamuri, said the commission had given the City Council a 1,500 feet setback map in February, which showed that the limit effectively prohibits cell phone tower sites every where in the city.

“We have concerns about the number without further study,” said Tamuri.

Resident Linda Stock raised the issue of incomplete applications being submitted by cell phone carriers, which, she said, “severely affects the ability of the community to look at the applications and see where we stand with reference to the law.” 

Added resident Liat Samouhi: “We have often looked at several files and have found them incomplete or filled with inaccuracies . . . the council’s direction is for maximum protective measures for the community, and to make for the most stringent ordinance allowable by law. For this it’s important that all sections of the application are complete and have been verified. The city and public are put in a vulnerable place if changes are made after the approval process starts.”

The Commission voted unanimously to strike recommendation 12 among others. 

Recommendation 12 in the draft ordinance pertained to providing incentives for applicants who choose the least intrusive site for their wireless telecommunication facility. However, commissioners said since it was required by law to find the least intrusive site, an incentive were meaningless. 

Over the next week, the staff will present a final draft of the wireless telecommunications ordinance for consideration to commissioners, before they decide to recommend it to the council for final approval. Final discussion on the draft will take place at the commission's next meeting on April 27.