 |
|
PHC's Report on the February 24 FCC Meeting
|
|
In
attendance were 30 folks, representatives of the FCC, Maryland State Government DBM in charge of
building the tower, Maryland Historic Trust, National
Trust for Historic Preservation, Howard County Planning and Zoning,
Howard County office of Public Works, Police and
Fire departments, citizens affected by the area,
local historic groups, Chris Merdon's office, and
lead engineers from Motorola.
Frank Stillwell from the FCC led the meeting
and did a fabulous job of containing a room full of frustrated
individuals.
The job of the FCC is to determine two things:
- Are there any alternative sites?
- If not, what mitigation can be done to create a less adverse
effect on the Historic District?
The State and the County were adamant that the District Court site was
the best site. However, toward the end of the meeting, one of the
Motorola engineers stated that if a tower were placed at the Campus site
it would have to be much bigger than the tower at the District Court site.
Perhaps 100-300 feet higher - is what he said after the meeting. The tower slated for the current District Court site is
340 to 360 feet, depending on your source of information. In comparison the
tower just completed at the Howard High site is 425 feet. His point was
that you would still be able to see the tower from the Historic District, even though
it would be farther away. The State pointed out that the County
owned that land, and it would be nearly impossible to execute a
land swap in a timely manner to facilitate that site. If it remained
County land, Joe Rutter stated, that it would be subject to applying
for a setback permit.
After the meeting ended, the second
representative to the FCC stated, "I really like that Campus site"
meaning, I think, that she thought the Campus site sounded like
it had some potential. She was also adamant, however, that the tower not
be delayed.
After discussing alternative sites, attendees shifted the conversation to what
could be done to mitigate the effects of the tower. The State is in
charge of mitigation since it is their tower and their land. Obvious
suggestions were discussed, such as making all the antennae solid gray to match the
tower, planting trees around the base of the tower, and limiting the
number of antennae on the tower. Also discussed as
options by the citizens - but not commented on by the State- were
restricting any commercial antenna on the tower and removing the tower
after one year if it was no longer being used.
The State Historic Trust is pushing for other benefits to the Historic District -
including having the State bring the Historic District up-to-
date in terms of national significance, and thus helping prevent
situations like this from happening in the future. I also plan to
remind the State Historic Trust and the FCC of the historic
preservation goals listed in the County's General Plan - some of which could be
expedited by State Grant funds - including updating the Historic Sites Inventory and
drafting a County Historic Preservation Plan.
-
Mary Catherine Cochran
|
|
