Linn County sends proposed cell‑tower zoning amendment back to planning and zoning; allows People’s Telecommunications to pursue conditional use permit

Linn County commissioners on Aug. 4 agreed to send a proposed amendment to county zoning code section 16.4.11 back to the planning and zoning board for rewording and asked that People’s Telecommunications be allowed to proceed with a conditional use permit application for an 80‑foot telecommunications tower in the Tanglewood area.

The amendment under discussion would clarify how the county regulates radio, cellular and broadcast towers, including a 110 percent setback rule measured from property lines. Planning and zoning staff said the draft language currently identifies a 100‑foot threshold; residents and at least one commissioner said the wording is confusing and raised concerns that towers shorter than 100 feet could be installed without the public review that a conditional use permit (CUP) provides.

Planning and zoning director Ben (first name given in the record) told commissioners the proposed text was written to match existing code verbiage and that the planning and zoning board had previously passed the change. Ben said staff will rewrite the language to make the rule’s intent clearer and bring the amendment back to the commission after another planning and zoning review and public notice.

Residents at the meeting urged stricter review. Marge Wake of Tanglewood asked that the rule be spelled out to avoid piecemeal interpretation and urged consideration of minimum distance buffers used in other jurisdictions. Skye Farris questioned raising the threshold from the county’s prior 75‑foot standard to 100 feet, saying the change would allow an 80‑foot tower to avoid a CUP and bypass community input. Paul Griffith also opposed what he called limited public participation and urged commissioners to “ask the people.”

Jennifer Lee, representing People’s Telecommunications, said the company’s project had prompted much of the public discussion but that the code rewrite was not being made specifically for People’s. She said People’s had submitted a CUP and that confusion over prior guidance led to repeated requests and relisting in the newspaper; she asked to be allowed to continue with the CUP process while planning and zoning refines the amendment language.

Commissioner Allison Hightower (recorded as Allison Hightower/Allison Hamilton in the transcript) recommended keeping a CUP requirement for all communication towers so neighbors would have an opportunity to weigh in, regardless of height. After discussion, commissioners agreed to return the amendment to planning and zoning for clearer wording and also asked that People’s Telecommunications be permitted to proceed with its CUP application; staff said the CUP will need to be relisted in the newspaper with a 20‑day notice and would likely appear before planning and zoning in September.

The county’s proposed language, as described in staff comments, would require a CUP for towers 100 feet or taller and set a required setback equal to 110 percent of tower height measured from property lines; commissioners and members of the public debated whether the rule should instead require CUP review for any tower height or explicitly state that towers shorter than 100 feet do not require a CUP. Several residents asked that health, wildlife and proximity to homes be factors considered in choosing locations.

Ben said the current plan had been in development before People’s Telecommunications notified the county of its specific tower proposal; he repeated that staff will revise the draft wording and return it to planning and zoning for a new public review before the commission acts.

Next steps: planning and zoning will rewrite the amendment language, republish notice as required, and hold further hearings. People’s Telecommunications’ CUP application will be relisted in the newspaper for the required 20‑day public notice period and will proceed through the planning and zoning process.