Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
Lakewood Town Hall
Call to order: Commission Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Bob Wolfe called the Public Hearing to order at 7:03 P.M.
Present: Chair Wolfe, Dick Bodine, Ann Cutts, Robin Downs, Kerry Leider, Phil Halverson, Angie Dickinson-Palmer, Recorder Shannon Ostazeski, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, and public (see attached registrar).
Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was recited by all present.
Review of Agenda: (Bob Wolfe) We are meeting to discuss the request for a Zoning Ordinance text change. It applies to the Ordinance section on Telecommunication and wind generating towers. The public may provide input to the Commission before they make their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The proposed change was drafted on February 23, 2006 (see attached sheet).
Hearing procedures according to the Ordinance found on page 114-115 will be followed. Line of order is as follows:
I. Staff report
II. Those in favor
III. Those opposed
IV. Other comments or evidence from the public
I. Staff Report given by Bob Wolfe:
Originally there was not an ordinance on towers for our township. Later a moratorium was put in place while the Commission was asked to craft an ordinance. A public hearing was held to adopt the county ordinance on this subject. The Town Board adopted the county ordinance but put a moratorium on it while once again the Commission was asked to construct something. A telecommunications sub-committee was formed and they drafted a proposed text change. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to not recommend the sub-committees draft to the Town Board. The Town Board made a request at the April 5, 2006 Supervisors Meeting to hold a public hearing on April 26th to discuss the sub-committees proposed language for the text change in the Ordinance.
Concerns taken into account by the sub-committee were public health, migratory birds, unsightliness and protecting the township from tower farms. Many references were used in the copulation.
The Proposed Ordinance Draft 2/23/06 by the Telecommunication sub-committee was read by Wolfe.
Definitions
Commercial Communication Tower
Minimum Standards
Communication Towers for Amateur Radio Operators
Wind Generating Towers- Commercial
Wind Generating Towers- Personal Use
Wolfe: We are here to present the proposed text change and address any questions. Mrs. Campbell (audience): What setbacks will be required? It does not say specifically in here.
Wolfe: It implies our general setbacks.
Mrs. Campbell (audience): Under "N" it should say "The applicant will demonstrate that the facilities, including roads, are in compliance with the current county, state and federal wetland regulations."
Halvorson: It is implied by the nature of the wording.
Wolfe: If we change wording in this we will have to have another public hearing. Audience: If the setbacks are not stated it could come back to get us.
Jerry (audience): In paragraph "G" it says there will be a minimum of one mile separating a new tower from an existing tower. What if three towers are proposed at once? Will they still be separated by one mile?
Wolfe: Yes.
Jerry (audience): What about the permits issued in LIU?
Wolfe: The Zoning Administrator will need to reassess those permits because there was a misinterpretation. They may be grandfathered in and not subject to the county ordinance.
Tim Musick (audience): Typo on page 5 under 23.06 under B. It should be MPCA.
Halvorson: What is the rational for not having setbacks for the amateur radio? Bodine: That is the way the county has it in their ordinance. The way the federal law reads putting setbacks on amateur radio would be in violation of federal laws.
Halvorson: Where do the measurements start for these towers? Bodine: The ground.
Halvorson: Section 23.03 "I" it says, "Ifthe site is on a private road, there must be an agreement to use such a road from the appropriate party." Does the township want access to these towers?
Wolfe: There are potentially a number of visitors to that site. The Fish and Wildlife requires access for certain study groups and maybe the Zoning Administrator would need to have access.
Halvorson: What is considered a commercial tower?
Wolfe: Our interpretation was a wind-generating farm that generates power to sell to another person other than himself or herself.
Leider: This definition is really important. Personal wind generators can sell power back if they have excess.
Wolfe: That would be falling within personal use.
Mrs. Campbell (audience): The mile distance doesn't apply to the personal wind towers? Wolfe: Right.
Mrs. Campbell (audience): Was that the intention of the sub-committee? This is unsightly.
Bodine: We would be hard pressed to say no because of Federal regulations. You cannot restrict just because something is unsightly.
Leider: Under 23.06 "B" who determines nuisance? Does the MPCA or is it personal opinion? Does it benefit our ordinance to have that language?
Campbell (audience): Nuisance is a community standard.
Bodine: We made height limitations of 100 feet including the blades for windmills. That would put the assembly down to about 70 feet. Is that going to pick up anything? Wolfe: Possibly not but in some places not even a 300 foot tower could generate enough power.
Bodine: Maybe we should say the towers could be 100 feet high not counting the blades. Wolfe: We wanted to have some consistency. We could have picked 120 feet and there would still be some people that would not be able to catch wind.
Campbell: 100 feet will limit the visual impact.
Leider: Windmills are self-regulating. They are expensive and they may not be efficient enough in areas to make them worth the investment.
Audience: Does anyone have issues with cell phones?
Mrs.Campbell (audience): Bodine brought up that you would need more little towers to equal one big tower.
Wolfe: We don't know of any companies that are interested in Lakewood. We couldn't make the assumption that one or three towers would meet our needs.
Bodine: It is important that people have coverage for cell phones.
Musick (audience): What is the new language in the ordinance?
Wolfe: Many of the parts are the same. Items that are different are the County Ordinance allows towers in all zones with conditional uses. The new language would allow them but with a variance permit. Another difference has to do with height differences. The County has height standards for certain locations, other locations have no specific height limitation but they still must follow all other standards of their ordinance. We avoided some of the standards because our towers are limited to 100 feet with the exception of amateur radio towers. Amateur radio operators can apply for a variance to build up to 200 feet. Towers must be outside of significant migratory bird flight paths as determined by the MNDNR or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our whole township could be considered a bird migratory route according to some experts.
Bodine: Those small towers are not a problem for birds, the illuminated towers are. Cities cannot block cell towers for aesthetics. Local zoning may not discriminate wireless telecommunication towers.
Campbell (audience): The final product is good. I do think some language needs to be added for clarification.
Wolfe: Our charge is to answer questions and bring those concerns back to the town board. If we change the language it would require a second hearing. It is up to the Board to make the decision.
Jerry (audience): Paragraph "L" says "All appropriate government permits and authorizations must be followed and evidence of compliance with these regulations will be submitted to the Zoning Administrator." Would the applicant have to attach the information and attach it to the submitted permit application?
Wolfe: I have asked about this and we need to make a checklist for things like this. We can request the documentation. They would have to comply but enforcement would be up to us. The Fish and Wildlife has no arm of enforcement.
Mears: The applicant would come with the required paperwork.
Musick (audience): Concerned about conflicts that could arise when we exempt amateur radios.
Bodine: It is Federal law that we not impose on the amateur radio.
Wolfe: We can instill reasonable setbacks.
Diane Larson (audience): Since the moratorium expired seven permits were requested and issued. We need to act on this.
Hugo Leider (audience): Weare a bunch of amateurs. We should invite a cell tower representative and ask what they would.
Larson (audience): Page 4 under "M" Article VI Section 25 is a typo. It should be Article VI Section 21.
II. Those In Favor - Public Testimony
Chuck Campbell: Echo what Diane said about the seven requests. Fears that there will be towers all over the township.
Audience: The Zoning Administrator must require those things be attached to the permit like Jerry said.
Jerry: Strong points or the text change is limiting the towers to 1 00 feet, no lights and a mile between towers.
Mears: We can tighten this the best we can but it can never be perfect.
Bodine: Maybe there are licenses that need to be had for these towers. We need to check on these things.
Leider: If you look at the definitions we are using different language. Are personal communications towers permitted such as a television tower?
Bodine: We didn't address this.
III.
Those Against None
IV.
Other Comments
Downs: Can we suggest to the board that certain things could be worked on? Wolfe: We would have to have another public hearing.
Bodine: The Board of Supervisors should be aware of the court cases that have been heard in these areas.
Leider: Page 55 Article 6 Section 4 Wind Generators in our Ordinance. Will this text conflict with our ordinance?
Bodine: It should not remain in the Ordinance.
All agreed the turnout was so poor.
There were no letters received.
Commission Comments
Downs: Satisfied
Halvorson: We should adopt. Changes should be made.
Leider: Not in agreement with the 100 foot limitation because two hundred feet or less addresses many of the concerns. Weare just getting into this technology age. We could be creating more towers than is necessary. I don't agree with that.
Wolfe: I think it is a solid ordinance. There were a lot of concessions made. It will provide us the level of protection that we want for our rural community.
Bodine: As I mentioned before we need to be aware of what the court cases and the FCC have to say.
Dickinson-Palmer: In favor. It would be worse to take no action.
Cutts: In favor.
Motion by Cutts that we recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they adopt the subcommittees text change for our ordinance. Dickinson-Palmer Second.
Motion passes. Yes: 5
No: 2
Motion to adjourn by Bodine. Second by Cutts. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shannon Ostazeski Township Recorder