Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board extends decision on proposed Belfast Township cell tower after neighbors submit new information
Summary
Facing post-hearing submissions from neighbors raising safety, property-value and environmental concerns, the Murray County Board approved a 60‑day extension to allow the Planning Commission and staff to review new information and prepare findings on The Towers LLC’s permit application.
The Murray County Board on June 2 extended by 60 days the decision period for a conditional use permit filed by The Towers, LLC to erect a telecommunications tower in Belfast Township. The extension follows receipt of new information from area neighbors that was not before the Planning Commission at its May 21 hearing.
Board members outlined the materials they had received from neighbors and emphasized that the meeting was not an opportunity to convert into a public hearing with live testimony. The county’s attorney advised the board that under Minnesota law the board may extend the decision timeline to permit the Planning Commission to consider new information and for staff to prepare draft findings. The board voted to extend the 60‑day decision period and remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration; staff also was asked to research additional information and prepare findings based on the new submissions.
Neighbors’ concerns identified in the meeting record included: potential ice deflection from tower structures, perceived effects on property values, electromagnetic-field (EMF) health concerns, tower lighting and visibility, guy-wire and safety issues, effects on bird migration and wildlife, long-term maintenance and decommissioning, and the tower’s distance from nearby residences. Planning Commission materials had recommended approval with two special conditions, and the applicant said the proposed tower met the county’s setback and ordinance requirements; the board’s extension permits those earlier conclusions to be revisited in light of the new submissions.
Legal basis: the extension cites Minnesota Statutes as the authority for extending the decision timeline; County staff will schedule the matter for reconsideration by the Planning Commission and will draft findings for the board to review within the extension window.
Provenance: summary and extension motion recorded across SEG 006–SEG 007.
