2024-11-18 Debra Greene - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A report by an independent professional is absolutely necessary because the FCC does not send representatives onsite to test RF emissions, so there is no way to verify compliance. According to telecommunications attorney Andrew Campanelli who has successfully won lawsuits against telecommunications corporations, independent testing done in other jurisdictions has shown instances in which RF emissions exceeded the FCC guidelines. This is deeply troubling for the community because the FCC has some of the most lenient emission standards in the world. Third: The Director stated that this report requirement could conflict with federal law as local governments cannot impose stricter RF standards than the FCC. How can a report certifying compliance with Federal Law conflict with Federal law?There is absolutely nothing in the proposed ordinance that would impose stricter RF standards than are required by Federal law-quite the opposite. Again, the proposed requirement, as stated, is to ensure compliance with Federal law.To suggest it potentially violates Federal law reflects an inability to properly understand the ordinance. Or maybe there's something else at play? 3) Regarding Proposed Subsections 25-2-74(6), (7), (8), (12), (13) and 25-4-12(i)(3) & (4) These Subsections constitute plan approval application requirements. The Director stated that these sections are outside the purview of Planning but this is not a valid claim as there is nothing unusual about these sections. Conditions such as these are routine for various permit applications here. They include conditions such as flood control, fire prevention, Department of Health requirements, County code compliance, and so forth. In addition,jurisdictions across the country have implemented ordinances such as Bill 194 through their local planning departments. It's common practice here and elsewhere to include such provisions. 4) Regarding Proposed Subsection 25-4-12(f) This Section states that "the director may [emphasis mine] engage a private consultant to inspect and determine whether the proposed use violates any" FCC standards provided that the consultant's time not count toward the time limit. The Director repeatedly and incorrectly stated that Bill 194 includes the "Use of Private Consultants" when there is no required use of private consultants anywhere in the bill. His claim is misleading as the proposed ordinance does not mandate hiring a private consultant. The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director. The Director raised four concerns. First, he stated that "engaging private consultants may significantly raise costs for the County, creating unnecessary financial burdens," but this claim is alarmist and unfounded. Again, the proposed ordinance does not require hiring a private consultant. The choice is optional and at the discretion of the Director.