Bangor planners oppose broadcast tower ban

BANGOR – When a proposed ban on broadcast towers in rural areas goes before the City Council on Monday for a final decision, it will arrive without an endorsement from the city’s planning board.

During a meeting Tuesday night at City Hall, planning board members voted 3-2 against an amendment to the city’s land use code that would prohibit radio and television towers in the city’s rural residence and agriculture districts, which make up about a third of Bangor’s total land.

Rural areas also happen to be where much of the city’s recent residential development has occurred.

Exempted from the ban would be cellular telephone towers, which the city must allow under the Federal Communications Act of 1996.

The proposed ban was prompted by a plan to put up four 276-foot-tall antennae towers for a proposed AM radio station on outer Broadway.

Charles Hecht and Alfredo Alonso of Pittstown, N.J., had planned to build the station on a 51.6-acre parcel at 2110 Broadway, about six-tenths of a mile toward town from the intersection of Broadway and Pushaw Road.

The two received permission to move ahead with the project on July 3, when the planning board voted 3-2 to grant them conditional use approval for the station’s antennae.

But neighbors raised concerns about the project. Complaints included potential health effects of radio waves, adverse impact on wildlife, obstruction of scenic views and decreased property values.

To have more time to review the issue, the council imposed a six-month moratorium on broadcast towers in October and made it retroactive to July 1.

During Tuesday’s meeting and in his background memo for board members, Planning Officer David Gould made it clear that the proposed ban was a first step in the city’s effort to regulate telecommunication towers and that more work needed to be done.

Despite that, several members said they would have preferred a more comprehensive approach to tackling the towers issue.

“I’m disappointed that we got a document that’s as flawed as this is,” member Miles Theeman said, characterizing the proposed text of the amendment as “ill-prepared” and “incomplete.” He said he expected better, given the amount of time that city officials have spent considering the issue at the staff level and at council and council subcommittee meetings.

Theeman called the ban “sort of a backdoor way for the City Council to undo what the planning board has done.”

Chairman Robert Guerette also opposed the amendment, though for different reasons.

“I don’t like the flavor of this particular measure,” he said. He would prefer the towers on that site to residential development that would cover the area with houses, asphalt, detention ponds and other infrastructure.

“At least [having the tower on the site] preserves 53 acres of land from ever being developed again,” he said, adding, “I cannot support this measure.”

Member Nathaniel Rosenblatt wanted to know why the plan was to ban broadcast towers outright rather than better regulate them.

Associate, or nonvoting, member Jeff Barnes noted that most residents used cell phones, watched television and listened to radios, thanks to towers.

“I’m not saying I’m for or against them, [but] there are two sides to this issue,” he said.

About half a dozen homeowners who live near the proposed radio station location attended Tuesday’s meeting to support the ban. Their arguments failed to change the board’s recommendation.

The council is slated to make a decision on the ban during its next regular meeting, set for 7:30 p.m. on Monday night at City Hall.