2024-09-18 Elizabeth Songvilay AT & T Testimony

Home

12(c)(1)), these amendments do not directly address AT&T's concerns because many of its towers in the County are sited on parcels zoned agricultural or open space. The Department's stated rationale for the five -acre minimum lot size is that it "aims to ensure enough land area to site new telecommunication facilities a safe distance from any surrounding structures and to comply with newly proposed setback requirements."13 The proposed 120 percent setback from property lines independently achieves this purpose. Five -acre parcels are often 330 feet wide by 660 feet long, well over the dimensions needed to allow for a tower- height-plus-20 percent setback for a typical tower. This proposed subsection would eliminate numerous parcels that could meet the required setback to property lines and unnecessarily limit potential sites for new towers. AT&T suggests that the minimum lot size in agricultural and open space zones be no more than one acre, or as suggested by Verizon Wireless,14 that the minimum lot sizes be eliminated from the proposed new code since the 120 proposed setback independently achieves the County's stated purpose. Other significant concerns The Department proposes that the director be able to "require any conditions or changes in the location and design of telecommunication antennas and towers... the director may require an on - site or off -site relocation of the telecommunication tower in an effort to mitigate visual impacts." Proposed Subsection 25-4-12(k). AT&T suggests more precise direction for aesthetic mitigation in the proposed code, to provide more predictability for both applicants and the community. For example, many jurisdictions require stealth design specifically when a proposed tower would be located in certain areas, such as in designated scenic corridors or dense residential zones. Such a requirement provides for a consistent application of the code, with the reasonable expectations of both the applicant and the community more likely to be met. As written, with wide open discretion for the director,15 the code's application is likely to result in inconsistent permit decisions. Moreover, this broad discretion in the director's review is contrary to the 60-day review timeline for tower permit approval; typically, shorter administrative reviews require more objective standards to maintain the required timelines. AT&T suggests deleting or amending this provision. To be clear, AT&T does not oppose new requirements or design standards to mitigate visual impacts. We echo Verizon Wireless' suggestion for the Department to propose specific standards. 16 Such standards can be appropriately tailored to address specific areas or situations. This approach will establish objective and clear standards, which will be helpful for the Department staff, applicants, and the public as future use permits are considered. 13 Planning Director's Report, PL-PDI-2024-000008, Background and Recommendation, July 23, 2024, p. 12. 14 Id., Exhibit 7. 15 Please note also that the Director does not have authority to require an off -site relocation. 16 Planning Director's Report, PL-PDI-2024-000008, Background and Recommendation, July 16, 2024, Exhibit 7. 4