Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly deadlocks on wireless facilities ordinance after public outcry over setbacks and health concerns
Summary
After extensive public testimony urging larger setbacks, independent RF review and clearer liability, the Petersburg Borough Assembly failed 3-3 to advance Ordinance 2026-12, which would have established zoning and permitting rules for wireless communication facilities.
The Petersburg Borough Assembly failed to advance a proposed ordinance that would establish zoning and permitting standards for wireless communication facilities, voting 3-3 after hours of public comment and debate.
Supporters of stricter limits and residents living near existing towers urged the assembly to require 1,500-foot setbacks from schools, hospitals and childcare facilities, add independent radio‑frequency review and specify maximum tower heights. “We are still being forced to swallow a long term irreversible poison,” said Becky Knight, who urged the borough to require annual independent RF reviews and to expand setback protections to all residents.
Other public speakers raised concerns about property values and visual impacts. Micah Klein, who said he lives near a proposed tower site, told the assembly that increasing the setback to 1,500 feet would protect aesthetics and property values while still allowing providers to site infrastructure on state or federal lands: “By increasing setbacks to protect property values, we’re not completely limiting these people because we’re surrounded by state and forest service land.”
Assembly members were split over whether the draft struck the right balance between community protections and federal preemption. Some members said the ordinance’s 1,500‑foot separation distances would effectively require conditional‑use review across much of the borough and could be vulnerable to legal challenge. Member Stan Greger warned that overly restrictive distances might make it impossible to fill reasonable coverage gaps and noted the ordinance as drafted would send many applicants straight to the waiver process.
Planning staff and the borough attorney told the assembly the ordinance includes waiver provisions for technical or structural infeasibility and envisions expert review when applicants request exceptions. The staff memo attached to the ordinance also included a map showing the proposed 1,500‑foot separations from schools, childcare facilities, the hospital and assisted‑living facilities.
After members exchanged views about legal risk, enforceability and community expectations, the motion to approve the ordinance failed on a 3-3 vote. The mayor explained the ordinance would return to the planning commission for additional work and public input rather than advancing as written.
What’s next: The assembly did not adopt the ordinance; members said they want revisions and additional justification for separation distances and clarified waiver procedures before reconsideration.
