County denies permit for cell phone tower near Ona Beach
By Steve Card Of the News-Times
A proposal to construct a cellular telephone tower near Ona Beach State Park was denied Monday evening by members of the Lincoln County Planning Commission.
T-Mobile Western Corp. had been seeking a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 180-foot monopole, to be located at the Oregon Department of Transportation maintenance facility at 12735 NW Pacific Coast Highway.
ODOT operates its facility on nearly 14 acres, and the tower was to occupy approximately 1,824 square feet in the southwest area of the yard, adjacent to an existing ODOT maintenance building.
T-Mobile was not proposing to use any "concealment technology" on the pole to better blend it in with its surroundings. However, Steven Gerber, representing the applicant before the planning commission, said the proposed tower site is well removed from the highway and any surrounding residences, and it is screened by topographic conditions and tree cover. Only the highest portions of the tower would be visible, which is necessary to provide the "line of sight" transmission this type of wireless technology requires.
The new cell tower is necessary to fill in some of the existing "dead zones" in the current cell coverage, according to the applicants. And although the tower would be owned by T-Mobile, it would open the door to other cellular telephone companies "co-locating" on the pole.
According to the staff report prepared by Lincoln County Planning Director Matt Spangler, a cell tower is passive in nature, producing no noise, odors, smoke, dust or vibration, and only occasional maintenance is required so traffic is not a factor. "So the primary potential impact of the proposed facility would be visual."
Spangler wrote in his report that one of the criteria for approval of a wireless communications facility is that is must be "visually subordinate." This means that it must not noticeably contrast with the surrounding landscape.
The planning commission opened the public hearing on this application at its Nov. 13 meeting. Considerable testimony was offered by members of the public who opposed the location of the new cell tower. Some of the concerns mentioned were not relevant to the criteria that must be considered by the commission in this type of application, but they were concerns nonetheless. Among these were the possible health issues and effects from exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF); the negative impact it would have on property values, and the potential impact on wildlife - birds that could fly into the tower and, in particular, a pair of eagles that nest near the proposed tower site.
But as the planning commission deliberated toward a decision at this week's meeting, it was the visual impact of the tower the proved to be the stumbling block. Commissioner Dick Johnson said it appeared that a 100-foot tower "would do 90 to 95 percent of what the 180-foot tower would do." He wondered if a shorter tower might be the way to go to lessen the visual impact.
Commissioner Steve Morrill said he tried to weigh the application in terms of the number of objections versus the number of people who would benefit through enhanced cellular service. "I don't think there's any question that there's a need for a tower," he said. He would have preferred a tower located a bit farther north, to better fill those gaps in service between Seal Rock and Newport, but he said he was comfortable with the proposal and would vote in favor of it.
Commissioner Phil Spulnik said, "If you hate any kind of mechanical thing, you're going to be offended by it. I, personally, am not offended by cell phone towers." He did feel the applicant would probably have to work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the close proximity of the eagle's nest, but as far as birds hitting the tower, "I think power lines probably do a lot more damage than a single tower does."
Commissioner Andra Bobbitt said the proposed tower site "is on the highest peak of a very scenic area. Every time I go around the corner, I'm looking for the eagle. I, personally, don't want to see a tower there. To me, that location is a visually dominant location."
Bobbitt also felt the applicant did not provide sufficient information to enable the planning commission to evaluate the true impact the tower would have on the visual landscape. And she said, "There's got to be other places that can be provided without locating in that visually dominant location."
Commissioner Roger Grady thought there were places the tower could go other than "on that perfect spot," but these other areas would require the applicant to spend additional money on roads, utilities, and other things needed for access.
Commissioner Onno Husing said the applicant initially claimed that alternative sites were rejected because the landowners would not talk to them. But the applicant later said the ODOT site was chosen for its ability to connect with another tower in Waldport. "We're getting conflicting testimony here," he said.
Husing believes there are a number of alternative locations for the tower, and "I don't think adequate consultation had happened with other property owners. It's not our job here to find other properties. I'm prepared to vote no or ask the applicant to take the time to seek other consultations."
Spulnik said, "To me, it's as good a spot as you're going to get and not affect the whole community." He went on to say, "We're not talking about a national park here. We're talking about Ona Beach."
Husing said, "I don't think it's a terrible site. I'd just like to see some additional information. These are tough calls on whether the applicant has done due diligence in talking with other people."
Spangler told planning commission members that the county code does not give them authority to evaluate an application based on whether or not the applicant has evaluated all alternative locations. "You're only evaluating whether or not this meets the criteria," he said.
Commission Chairman Chris Torp also weighed in on the issue. "I think it's in a visually dominant location. In theory, you'll be able to see that tower for several miles up and down the coast."
Commissioner Judith Pelletier said, "We can think of (the tower) as dominant, but after awhile, we just don't see it."
Husing said this entire issue is "a very subjective exercise for all of us," adding that good people can disagree on what is visually subordinate or not.
When it came time for the vote, this visual impact was the deal breaker. A motion to approve T-Mobile's conditional use permit was denied on a 3-5 vote. Commissioners Pelletier, Spulnik and Morrill voted in favor of the cell tower, while commissioners Johnson, Husing, Grady, Torp, and Bobbitt were opposed.
Steve Card is assistant editor for the News-Times. He can be reached at 265-8571 ext. 224, or stevecard@newportnewstimes.com.
Posted on Thursday, November 30 @ 05:31:17 UTC by admin
"County denies permit for cell phone tower near Ona Beach" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
Previous Article 
