our Planning Board is wrestling with the concept that there are likely public health issues from towers but they want to have setbacks from schools and daycares just the same (1500')
our town did not put in a wireless ordinance soon after the 96 Act because, in reality, the market wasn't there, so there was no need to - we scrambled to do one this past year because we had interest from the industry (and they are watching our space closely) -
the way I worked it for the Ordiance we have was to balance the comp plan policies that speak to enhancing our access to technology with the needs for protecitng visual quality - so early staff drafts were highly (hyper) focused on visual impacts -
one other avenue we are looking at is the ability to control based upon property values
the coverage we have now is towers in exisitng buildings or accidentally from off-island towers
has anyone dealt with this situation - it almost becomes an ethics problem because I can't say "no problem" to ordinances that I know violate the Act but in good conscience, if there are risks that we now are finding more about, how can I be a robot about it?
I know that it's the phones that are shown to cause damage - but European studies also have the link to the towners - the problem is there are no US studies and the Act says no regulaiton due to perceived health risks -