MC officials eye tower options

Madison County officials are still fine-tuning proposed new rules regarding cell phone towers.

The new policy aims to improve wireless communication in the county while protecting its “natural beauty,” according to drafts of the possible wireless communications ordinance. 

A three-person committee – comprised of the Madison County Planning Commission’s Jacki Eisenberg, Ray Gooddall and David Jones – was established earlier this year to discuss what types of guidelines should be included in a possible ordinance regarding towers to provide both cell phone and wireless broadband Internet services.

After reading related ordinances from Albemarle, Rappahannock, Culpeper and Louisa counties, the committee recommended this past summer that Madison County base its own ordinance off the one established in Louisa County, Jones, the committee’s
chairman, has previously said.

County representatives have the past few months piecing together an ordinance specific to Madison County based off this recommendation. As officials’ neared completion of this new ordinance – they were recently presented with some new rules to consider.

The committee and the rest of the planning commission are now reviewing two possible ordinances. “Option A” is based on Louisa County’s ordinance while “Option B” is based on Nelson County’s.

Currently, a Madison County resident interested in putting up a wireless tower must apply for a special use permit. While the proposed ordinances introduce more detailed requirements regarding the towers’ look and location, both possible ordinances would allow residents to put up certain types of shorter towers “by right,” without a special use permit, according to a discussion draft.

The draft ordinance similar to Nelson County’s “is basically the version we’ve been working on (Option A), but instead of regulating towers by reference to whether they’re freestanding or attached or concealed, [Option B] substitutes regulation based entirely on the height [of the structures],” County Administrator Lisa Kelley told the commission.

“(Option A) has had a lot more work on it, but we brought you Option B because we want to give as many options as we can,” Jones told the planning commission at its regularly scheduled Oct. 15 workshop meeting.

Under the “Option A” scenario, towers would be allowed “by right” depending on their height, whether they are attached to existing structures and if they are hidden or camouflaged, according to the draft. When determining if a special use permit is required, the height and look of a tower are considered under these rules.

In general, this option “promotes” shorter cell tower structures, according to Kelley. However, during some of the committee’s meetings, it came up that this first option doesn’t address the “proliferation” of structures, she said.

“At a certain point having three times as many structures that are smaller may not be any more attractive or particularly beneficial to coverage than having fewer structures that are taller,” she said.

The “Option B” ordinance includes rules that allow multiple separate towers to be located on the same property – something not allowed in the other draft ordinance, Kelley said. This aspect could be useful if a certain location is identified as “attractive” for cell phone providers, according to the county administrator. 

“We thought that was an interesting way to approach the subject and deal with the issue of trying to get some handle on controlling the proliferation of the shorter structures,” the county administrator said.

This prevents the “proliferation” of towers by designating certain areas to have multiple towers rather than “having [towers] strung out over a…mile,” she said.

The second option also includes height restrictions for cell towers on mountain ridges. Commission Chairman Rodney Lillard said that although protecting the ridge tops is “something of an issue” in Madison County, it is not as big of an issue here as it is in Nelson County.

A tower placed on a ridge top would not need much additional height and due to the mountains’ distance from roadways and homes, they may not be attractive locations for towers in terms of providing cell phone service for residents and visitors, Lillard said.

County officials mentioned that they could possibly create a “hybrid” ordinance that includes aspects of both “Option A” and “Option B.”

The planning commission is expected to discuss these proposed draft wireless communications ordinances at either its regularly scheduled joint meeting with the board of supervisors set for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 5 or at its workshop meeting set for 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 19.