Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Towers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County hears a handful of questions on proposed cell‑tower ordinance tweaks
Summary
Commissioners briefly reviewed small changes to the county's cell‑tower rules (clarifying preferred versus unpreferred locations and maintaining a 5‑mile separation rule between towers). Residents raised questions about setbacks from homes, disguising towers, and whether a hard cap on future towers should be established.
Before the data‑hub discussion, staff briefly reviewed proposed small changes to the county's cell‑tower ordinance aimed at clarifying preferred and unpreferred locations and closing perceived loopholes from the earlier iteration. The county said the only known possible new site was near a local trucking company and that even under the prior ordinance a variance would be required.
Residents asked whether the public can vote on tower permits (the county attorney said no; elected officials decide), how far towers must be from residences (staff said about 1,000 feet in one passage), whether towers can be disguised (county staff said many are designed to look like trees and similar treatments are already allowed), and whether a numerical limit (a cap) should be imposed; the county suggested treating preferred‑location status as a showing applicants must justify and that variances are available under the existing process.
Questions during the cell‑tower portion were largely technical and limited in number; staff closed that portion of the hearing before starting the extended DIH ordinance reading and public comment period.
