TOWN OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Approved October 8, 2008
Commission Members Present: Fred Haulenbeek,
George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Will Patten, Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent: Jean Isham, Kay Ballard, Joe Iadanza.
**Note: There is 1
vacancy on the Commission.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Jim Barlow (VT League of Cities
& Towns), Clifford Brody, Charles Kogge, Richard Watts, Ginny Roberts,
Allison Cleary, Robert (Sparky) Millikin, Kim Hazelrigg.
Wireless Telecommunication Regulations – Reviewing Draft 1
of Possible Zoning Regulations
Alex passed out written comments
from Clifford Brody of
Jim gave a brief overview of what
he presented at the
State limitations on local
regulations stem from Act 79, which was passed in 2007:
Jim then walked the Commission
through the draft regulations section by section. Jim noted that as drafted these regulations
would also apply to wireless internet facilities, which are not addressed by
the federal TCA. Commissioners discussed
the advantages of having a clear set of regulations for wireless internet
technology as well, and noted that many of the smaller antennas/repeaters used
in today’s wireless internet service would be exempt from the conditional use
review.
During the discussion of review
criteria in section 7.11, Kim Hazelrigg asked if there are any criteria to keep
towers away from dwellings. Jim
explained that section 7.11.1 #3 requires that towers be separated from
property lines by a distance at least 100% of the tower height. Sparky Millikin noted that towers often have
supporting/stabilizing guy wires/cables, and he felt that the “fall zone” needs
to be larger than just the tower height to account for a broken supporting
cable. He said there was a good website
that illustrates this, and that he would forward that to Alex. Carrie noted that the property line setback
can address impact to off-site dwellings, but does not address the danger of
tower collapse to a dwelling on the same property as the telecom facility.
Allison Cleary asked about
criteria #4 that mentions required signs.
She wondered what sorts of warning signs are required – especially since
the federal government deems this technology to be safe. She said that any such signs should be
readable from a distance that is considered “safe”. Alex and Jim said the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regulates necessary signage.
Alex asked the Commission if it wanted
to limit the height of towers to avoid the need for lighting – i.e., apparently
towers of any sort over 200’ must be illuminated for air traffic safety. George said we should not include a blanket
prohibition as there might be situations in which a single very tall tower
would be the best choice – e.g., preferable to several smaller towers. Carrie said even so, she still had concerns
about illuminated towers.
Fred noted that section 7.11.1 #12
needs to be changed in order to reference the appropriate performance standards
section (5.12 instead of 5.2). Jim
reviewed section 7.5 of the draft regulations dealing with the type of review
and when a permit is needed. Allison
asked what sort of notification neighbors would receive if the Zoning
Administrator decided to grant a de minimis impact determination for a
facility. Alex explained that it would
be noticed the same way a typical building permit is, in other words, a notice
would be posted on the property at the nearest public road, and at the Town
Office. The Commission agreed that this
should be revised to require that a copy of the approved permit be mailed to
all abutters (possibly via certified mail).
This way neighbors would know about the facility and have an opportunity
to appeal the de minimis determination to the DRB within the 15 day appeal
period.
Charlie Kogge said that these
proposed regulations will create too much of a headache, and will only help
stymie the rollout of this important technology in Hinesburg. Instead of lengthy and complicated
regulations, he recommended working with wireless providers to identify the
minimum number of locations that can provide the necessary/best service. He said that once these sites are identified,
the Town can require that future facilities locate in these areas/sites. He said this is a much better way to address
the community’s issues, rather than leaving future locations completely up to
the advocacy of wireless companies and the opposition of neighbors. Richard Watts said this is exactly what the
Selectboard tried to do at the sewer lagoon site, but with no success – first
company (Nextel) said the site would work but didn’t follow through, and second
company (Unicel) said the site would not work for them. Will said this is not an either/or decision. He said that we should be doing both – i.e.,
a reasonable review process and an effort to work with providers to find the
best sites for service, possibly for later inclusion on a Town Offical Map.
Alex asked the Commission if there
were certain zoning districts that should be off limits to these facilities –
e.g., the Shoreline zoning district. The
Commission discussed this issue, and the consensus was not to pick and choose
zoning districts, and instead ensure there is a good review process in place. Alex said that Jean Isham had given him
feedback ahead of the meeting indicating her desire to allow these facilities
in all zoning districts.
George reiterated that to
encourage co-location may mean accepting higher towers. Cliff Brody suggested changing or deleting
the word “compatible” in section 7.7.2.
Allison requested that these regulations require an annual report on FCC
compliance with radio frequency emissions, rather than have this be at the
discretion of the Zoning Administrator (ZA).
Cliff expressed concern about the abandonment section, and recommended
giving authority for determinations to the ZA instead of the DRB. Alex said that we need to define abandonment
for the purposes of this section, since there is another section in the zoning that
deals with abandoned structures. Charlie
suggested requiring ZA inspection of facilities, in order to compel upgrade to
smaller, less intrusive facilities as technology improves.
Meeting Minutes of
Alex noted that Jean Isham had e-mailed him some minor typo
corrections to the draft minutes. George
MOVED to approve the
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2008.
The meeting adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted:
Alex Weinhagen