Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bristol Bay Assembly rejects broad residential cell‑tower ordinance, directs rewrite
Summary
The assembly voted down Ordinance 2025‑21, which would have allowed communication towers in residential zones up to 100 feet with a conditional‑use permit, and directed staff to rewrite the proposed ordinances with more guardrails after members raised concerns about opening residential parcels to towers.
The Bristol Bay Borough Assembly on Dec. 5 discussed two ordinances that would add communication towers as a permissible use in residential and multifamily zones under a conditional‑use permit, with a 100‑foot maximum height.
Planning and zoning director Steve Wilson told the assembly the change was proposed to make more land available for telecommunication infrastructure because the borough’s comprehensive plan (last updated in 2006) does not address telecommunications. "What this does is it does allow theoretically any, residentially zoned property for the sole use of that property," Wilson said, explaining the ordinance would permit towers where the code previously did not.
Assemblyman Rob Babiak urged caution. "It just seems like it needs to have a little bit more…guardrails," he said, arguing the ordinances as written could allow towers to be erected on residential lots without sufficient public notice or safeguards. Other members raised concerns about spot zoning, public‑notice requirements and aircraft safety in flight paths. Wilson said FAA and FCC approvals are required and that rezoning or conditional‑use reviews are processes that could impose additional scrutiny.
When asked whether a public hearing would be required for conditional‑use permits, Wilson said he was not certain and would need to check the code. Several members proposed that approvals by the planning commission should also come before the assembly.
After debate, the assembly voted on Ordinance 2025‑21 and the presiding officer announced the motion failed. The transcript records the chair calling for the question and stating "Aye" responses then saying, "Motion fails." The transcript does not provide a full vote tally. The companion measure for multifamily zoning, Ordinance 2025‑22, received no motion for adoption. The assembly directed the manager to rewrite both ordinances to include narrower limits and more explicit safeguards.
The assembly did not adopt new policy at the meeting; it instead moved to refine the proposals and return them for further consideration.
