Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Tower Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haines leaders send draft cell‑tower ordinance back to committee after debate over zoning, CUPs and coverage gaps
Summary
Haines Borough officials debated whether to rely on stricter zone‑by‑zone rules or a proactive map and streamlined permitting for cell towers, with concern that treating most sites as conditional uses would overload staff and the planning commission. The assembly directed further work in committee.
The Haines Borough Assembly and the Code Review Commission spent their meeting debating revisions to a draft ordinance intended to regulate where communications towers can be sited, how applications are reviewed and what information applicants must provide.
The meeting opened with the mayor noting the borough’s September 2024 comprehensive plan calls for better cell and Internet coverage to support local business and tourism, while many residents rank natural scenery as the community’s top value — a tension that threaded the discussion.
“[The CRC] used the Juno code as a framework,” said Emma, chair of the Code Review Commission, describing the committee’s aim as building “a platform for the public and the planning commission to be able to gather all the information” when permits are considered. CRC member Deborah highlighted the draft’s design criteria that would require any freestanding communications equipment taller than 125 feet to be engineered to accommodate at least four antenna arrays, and said the CRC intended to encourage colocation to reduce the number of freestanding towers.
Industry consultant Mike Powers (Atlas) told the assembly that carriers generally identify search rings — map circles where an antenna could close a coverage gap — and then seek sites within those rings. He and other speakers warned that federal law and FCC precedent limit local authority over safety and health questions and that courts apply a fact‑specific “significant coverage gap” test when providers claim a local denial would leave customers without reasonable alternatives.
Several assembly members and planning commissioners said the draft zoning chart’s default of conditional uses in many residential zones would produce a flood of CUP applications that are costly and time‑consuming. “If each of these permit the tower issues is a CUP, we are gonna be up to our noses in CUP processes from hell to breakfast,” the mayor said while raising the concern about staff and volunteer burden.
Assembly member Forrester proposed a proactive mapping approach: combine FCC coverage‑gap data and local parcel/density layers to identify ‘sweet spots’ where use‑by‑right permitting would be allowed and outside those areas require a more rigorous CUP review. Supporters said that would incentivize carriers to site equipment where it affects the fewest residents while preserving public review for contentious locations.
Planning and zoning technician Donna Lambert and several residents said the borough’s current permit notice practice can leave neighbors unaware until construction crews arrive; Lambert said coverage complaints often drive carriers’ maps, and she urged clearer notification and application definitions so planning staff can apply the code consistently.
Borough attorney Max Holmquist said the assembly could require applicants to submit maps and explain the expected coverage benefit — for example, which neighborhoods would gain service or speed improvements — and recommended either clearer objective zone standards (height limits, stealth requirements) or a streamlined CUP process tailored to cell‑tower applications so decisions remain consistent with the Telecommunications Act.
Public commenters emphasized balancing service needs during peak tourist seasons with preserving scenery and neighborhood character. Kimberly Rosado urged careful attention to industrial creep into residential areas; Diana Lapham and others urged the assembly to keep the ordinance simple and predictable for both residents and applicants.
After extended discussion, several members — including Assemblymember Cheryl Stickler and CRC representatives — recommended sending the draft back to committee for revision so the CRC and planning commission can tighten definitions, revisit the zoning chart and draft clearer, targeted approval criteria. The mayor agreed and asked staff to post photos of the meeting’s whiteboard notes online.
No formal, final ordinance vote occurred at the meeting; the assembly’s direction was procedural: return the draft to committee for redrafting and to create a targeted approach to application requirements and public notice.
