Committee reviews cell-tower hearing outcome and considers public guidance after residents say they were unprepared

Committee members summarized a recent Board of Adjustment hearing in the Town of Mecan in which a cell-tower special-exception application was approved after staff, the applicant, and the county’s consultant concluded the proposal complied with county ordinances and relevant state and FCC standards.

Multiple residents (reported at the hearing) spoke in opposition but, staff and counsel said, did not present the sort of evidence required under the zoning and statutory standards. Jean, the zoning administrator, told the committee that applicants and the county’s hired consultants presented substantial evidence and that the special exception was passed; she also explained that appeals from a Board of Adjustment decision are generally limited to procedural issues and would proceed to circuit court.

Several supervisors expressed concern that many constituents attended meetings without understanding what constitutes admissible evidence. One supervisor said residents “didn’t bring the evidence they needed” and suggested the county explore a simple information pamphlet or webpage that explains what materials are helpful at such hearings and that the county cannot provide legal advice. Corporation counsel (Sean) and staff cautioned the office cannot give legal counsel but can provide neutral explanatory resources.

Why it matters: cell-tower and other land-use special-exception hearings often draw neighbors and town residents who may not know how to prepare testimony that meets quasi-judicial standards. County staff said their authority is constrained by state statutes and FCC regulations; if applicants meet statutory criteria, local boards have limited ability to deny requests based on public opposition alone.

What’s next: Committee members agreed to continue the discussion offline about possible public guidance (a fact sheet or similar materials) explaining hearing procedures, evidence expectations, and appeal routes. No formal change in county policy was adopted at the meeting.