Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Tower Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews proposed cell‑tower ordinance, votes to commission GIS 'priority siting' map
Summary
Following public objection from a Mudbay resident, the committee reviewed proposed changes to communications siting rules, discussed FCC preemption limits, and voted by consensus (absent objection) to ask GIS staff to prepare a kernel‑density population map to identify preferred tower sites and overlay FCC coverage gaps.
The Haines Borough Government Affairs & Service Committee advanced work on a proposed communications ordinance and agreed to commission a GIS analysis to guide future siting decisions.
During the item review the meeting opened with a public commenter, Kip Cromway (S1), who said he was "shocked" to find Mudbay included in the proposed ordinance and asked why the residential neighborhood had been placed under a conditional‑use requirement when existing code already contains tower‑specific language. Cromway said roughly 74 residents in the area opposed siting a cell tower there and raised concerns about electromagnetic frequency (EMF) exposure, urging the committee to recommend removing Mudbay from the ordinance.
Chair (speaker 3) responded by explaining a principal legal constraint: federal law and FCC rules require an objective showing of a coverage gap on the FCC map before a provider can be denied siting, so a blanket prohibition is likely to be preempted. "If a provider can show that there is a coverage gap on their FCC map... then they get to put a tower there," the Chair said, arguing that the planned CUP requirement is a first step because the borough currently has "nothing" that governs where towers may go.
Committee members discussed options to steer siting toward less‑populated locations rather than neighborhoods. The Chair proposed commissioning a kernel‑density population map — a GIS analysis that would produce deciles of population density — and overlaying it with the FCC coverage‑gap map. The idea is to create "cookie" sites (areas of low population density) where permitting would be streamlined, while siting in more populated deciles would trigger greater review.
At about 1990 in the transcript the committee, "absent objection," requested that staff (Fullerton) contact GIS specialist Gary Greenberg to collaborate with the Forrester supplemental document, prepare a kernel‑density estimation map, invite Gary to present at the next GAS committee meeting, and deliver the map as a briefing item. The committee also agreed to keep a clerk’s memo addressing definitions and modification rules as supplemental material for the assembly’s upcoming meeting.
Members noted complications including limited heavy industrial land (where towers might be less intrusive), rights of industrial property owners, and federal funding time pressures for providers. No final ordinance wording was adopted; members said the planned map and tightened definitions will inform subsequent ordinance revisions and assembly action.
