Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mud Bay Cell Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, assembly debate proposed Mud Bay cell tower as dozens speak against siting
Summary
Multiple Mud Bay residents told the Haines Borough Assembly they oppose a proposed cell phone tower at Mud Bay, raising zoning, property‑value, health, and process concerns; the assembly heard calls to respect conditional‑use procedures.
Dozens of residents spoke during public comment at the Feb. 10 Haines Borough Assembly meeting to oppose a proposed cell phone tower in the Mud Bay service area, citing zoning restrictions, possible health risks, aesthetic impacts and potential reductions in property values.
"I just wanted to go on the record ... I am opposed to that," Chris Hackbarth told the assembly, saying he opposed siting a tower at Mud Bay. Multiple other residents echoed that view. Cecily Stern told the assembly that a cell phone tower is not listed as an allowable conditional use in the Mud Bay service‑area planning zone and said erecting one there would be inconsistent with borough code: "It's not one of the conditional uses ... erecting a cell phone tower in the Mud Bay service area would in fact be against the zoning that we have in place."
Other speakers raised concerns about long‑term property values and aesthetics. Kip Karmoyan cited studies he said show average home values can decline near towers, and Brenda Josephson urged the assembly to respect conditional‑use procedures and the public process, asserting she had not been contacted by the mayor despite a prior statement implying otherwise.
Assembly members praised the Code Review Commission for providing technical clarifications to the draft ordinance and discussed next steps for refining definitions and conditional‑use language. Several members signaled sympathy with resident concerns; Assembly member Smith said he believes the community is largely opposed "for, I think, all the right reasons," citing health and welfare implications.
What’s next: the assembly and its planning bodies will continue technical review of code language and conditional‑use procedures; residents asked that the borough ensure conditional‑use permitting is honored and that any developer contacts follow public‑notice requirements.
Sources: public‑comment segments and subsequent assembly discussion during the Feb. 10 meeting.
