Haines Borough assembly pauses telecom ordinance after heated public comment on proposed Piedad Road tower

Mayor Tom Morphett summarized a complex, ongoing dispute over a cellphone-tower permit that is currently a use-by-right application for a North Sawmill Road (Carrington) site and the Assembly’s recent effort to draft a new ordinance governing future tower locations.

The mayor said borough staff explored alternate borough-owned parcels — including Wellfield Road and cemetery property — and proposed locating a monopole on Piedad Road (above the borough water-treatment plant) as less visually intrusive than previously proposed options. He reported the tower applicant had indicated a willingness to consider a 140-foot monopole rather than a previously proposed 190-foot three-legged tower.

Why it matters: residents near the Piedad Road site and other community members told the Assembly the Piedad site would place a tower close to houses, risk property-value loss and raise aesthetic and safety concerns. Multiple public commenters urged the Assembly to block that location or to provide clearer local rules before a permit is finalized.

Public commenters called for stronger local review and more transparent consultation. Anne Marie Fossum, who said she has lived in Haines for more than 50 years, urged the Assembly to “vote no for the location of a new cell tower at the top of Piedad Road,” citing property-value and safety concerns. Kyle Fosman told the Assembly a tower next to his home would “drop property value” and criticized the speed of the process. Assembly Member Smith and other members also raised health and legal concerns and noted limits imposed by federal law.

Assembly debate focused on whether the draft ordinance (Ordinance 25-07715) unintentionally changed existing rights. Emma Begley (code-review committee) said earlier CRC recommendations had been altered in the draft, specifically calling out inconsistent entries in the zoning-use chart that appear to convert some personal equipment uses into conditional uses.

Clerk’s staff asked the Assembly to clarify whether the intent is to require conditional-use permits (CUPs) for all modifications to existing communication equipment, or only for new commercial towers. Several members said the question over modifications — for example, adding collocating carriers or upgrading technology — needed clearer definition.

Action taken: a motion to adopt the ordinance was made and then withdrawn. The Assembly instead voted to refer the ordinance to a joint committee of the whole, composed of the code-review committee, planning commission and the Assembly, with legal counsel invited to participate and with emphasis on resolving the zoning-use chart and conditional-use criteria. The referral passed by voice vote.

What remains unresolved: the Assembly did not adopt ordinance text; staff flagged multiple drafting questions (e.g., whether routine equipment changes like battery swaps should trigger a CUP). The manager will work with the appointed joint committee and planning staff to produce clarified language and bring it back to the Assembly.

Quotes: “We could go to court with this company,” Mayor Morphett said, explaining that the Carrington application is likely a use-by-right permit because it predates any new local law. “If the tower were to fall, where would it land? I have concerns over this location,” resident Anne Marie Fossum said of the Piedad Road site.

Next step: the ordinance will be examined by a joint committee (CRC, planning commission, Assembly) with access to legal consultation before the item returns to the Assembly for further action.