Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbus County OKs amended cell-tower ordinance; staff to return with revised permit fees
Summary
The Columbus County Board of Commissioners approved an amended wireless communications ordinance establishing 100% tower-height setbacks, a 350-foot maximum, and engineer-certified setback reductions; the board asked staff to return with revised inspection and permit-fee recommendations.
The Columbus County Board of Commissioners voted on Nov. 3 to adopt an amended wireless communications ordinance that sets setback requirements and height limits for new communications towers.
Planning Director Kelsey Hammonds, who read the draft ordinance at the meeting, said the text defines "wireless communication facility" and a "wireless telecommunication tower," exempts small amateur and residential antennas, and would measure setbacks at 100% of tower height from lot lines. "So setback restrictions on here are gonna be a little different than what you can see with standard residences and other structures," Hammonds said, and she noted the planning board recommended including the public right of way in the setback language. She also told commissioners that "maximum height of towers may not exceed 350 feet in height," while allowing an increase of up to 20% by the Board of Adjustment with a licensed professional engineer’s certification of fall-area setbacks.
Commissioners raised landowner-impact questions during discussion, noting a 100%-height setback can create large effective easement footprints around a tall tower. The planning director said the Board of Adjustment may approve reduced setbacks only as part of a special-use permit and only after an engineer certifies there is adequate fall area.
Motion and fee conversation: After adopting the ordinance (motion by Commissioner Floyd; second by Commissioner Smith), the board also discussed updated building-inspection fees related to cell towers. Building Inspector Daryl Jackson said inspection volumes and electrical reviews justified raising some fees. One commissioner suggested a substantially larger one-time permit fee for tower sites to help close budget gaps; the board directed staff to return at the next meeting with revised fee recommendations. That referral passed by voice vote.
What happens next: The ordinance is adopted as amended; implementation details (exact permit and inspection fees) will be considered at an upcoming meeting when staff brings back specific fee schedules and recommended figures.
