August 24, 2006 at 7:22 a.m.

Pro-active approach to tower issues reviewed

Pro-active approach to tower issues reviewed
Pro-active approach to tower issues reviewed

If there are any landowners reading this who have an interest in hosting a communications tower on their parcel, and who does not have any neighbors who would oppose the installation, the county would sure like to hear from you.

County Planner Patrick Hollister spoke with the County Board last week about instituting a pro-active communications tower policy. Included in the concept would be identifying future tower sites, with some possibly owned by the county. Hollister said places like the City of Fridley have been generating income off government-owned leased tower sites. “Pre-designated tower locations,” he explained, “might limit the proliferation of towers, would make siting predictable and might create revenue for the county.” He guessed that even the communications companies would welcome pre-determined locations.

Hollister added, that the challenge in designating tower sites is “...everywhere is near somebody.” Meaning even government-owned locations aren’t guaranteed free-from-opposition.

Hollister then went over maps with the county commissioners that depicted county-owned land and commercial/industrial zoned locations in the county. He pointed out sites that have gone tax forfeit that could be acquired by the county.

There was also discussion about height of towers and if the tower ordinance should be re-visited to encourage shorter installations. Chisago County has a 199 foot limit basically because at 200 feet towers must be lighted. Chisago County also requires a length of tower space suitable to house three locations of equipment, which by virtue of equipment separation needs might be having the unintended result of making towers “too tall.”

Hollister showed existing tower permit sites (see graphic) and mentioned that cellular coverage patterns are fairly well established in this region so there may not even be locations available for county control that fill in gaps.

The planner said, however, “in theory” there are sites scattered all around the county however, that the county already controls or easily could control.

There was no action, this was a background presentation.

Comments:

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Events

January

SU
MO
TU
WE
TH
FR
SA
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT

To Submit an Event Sign in first

Today's Events

No calendar events have been scheduled for today.

Events

January

SU
MO
TU
WE
TH
FR
SA
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT

To Submit an Event Sign in first

Today's Events

No calendar events have been scheduled for today.