How should the Richmond County ordinance on “Cellular Towers” be interpreted?

That is a question Van Billingsley, the owner of Electronics Service Company in Hamlet brought to the Richmond County Board of Adjustment this week.

Billingsley made a lengthy presentation giving his interpretation.

After that, the board was unclear as to its jurisdiction on a ordinance created by county commissioners before the Planning Zoning Board of Adjustment was created.

The request by Billingsley for a Conditional Use Permit was tabled, or continued, until County Planner James Armstrong could meet with the county attorney for an opinion on the issue.

According to the conclusion of law under which the board is to make a decision, it would have ruled against the permit.

Marian and Mark Savage appeared in opposition to the request to raise a present tower on property on Zion Church Road from 100 feet to 198 feet to better accommodate high speed Internet access to customers.

They felt the fall zone as described by the ordinance would place their adjoining property under a liability and devalue the property. They said they were there to support the legal meaning of the ordinance.

Billingsley said his high speed Internet tower was not a “cellular tower” and therefore did not pose the same liabilities as a true cell tower.

He said his tower has a 12-inch diameter and is held in place by six guide wires which do not allow it to fall in its full length. “It is not designed that way,” he said.

Instead, he said such towers would collapse into themselves falling in a much smaller area. He said he has personally deliberately collapsed such towers, and that is what happens.

He went on to show pictures of and talk about such towers which have been constructed on top of and beside hospitals, schools and other public and private buildings. “If they were of any danger to those buildings, they would not have been constructed there,” he said.

He also said he would not want the liability if they would, even though he has a $2 million liability policy. He said he has never had a claim made against his company for a tower falling.

Billingsley said his 35-year track record of safety speaks for itself.

The Savages were concerned about insurance liability should they or someone else ever choose to develop their land in the future.

Billingsley made his case that the towers were essential to provide a service of high-speed Internet now being promoted by the federal government.

He said the present location to add to the established tower was the best for that area because of the high elevation of the land.

Ice accumulating then blowing off such towers in a large area, he said, is one argument used; but in his experience in this area, it has never happened.

As to what county commissioners had in mind in 1999 about towers they were regulating, Billingsley could only speculate with his own interpretation; and the board had no idea except the restrictions they had been given.

Billingsley stressed it was for the good of the community, but the ordinance doesn’t take that specifically into consideration.

The board of adjustment voted to table the issue until it could be clarified as to whom Billingsley should be presenting his request — to commissioners or the board of adjustment?

• • • • •

Mike Ussery appeared later as the board met as the planning board to hear his concerns over a recent ruling against him to convert a building to a residence when it existed on a lot with another house.

Armstrong said he was asked to look into possibly changing the county zoning ordinance with a text amendment to make some accommodation of Ussery’s situation.

Armstrong said he backed off that approach when he was informed Ussery planned to sue for relief.

Harvey Melton, board chairman, said they would proceed at the planning board to review the situation once again.