Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mudbay residents oppose proposed ATLAS cell tower; assembly reviews communications ordinance language
Summary
Residents from Mudbay and others told the Haines Borough Assembly they oppose a proposed ATLAS 5G tower in a residential area, questioned whether a 'significant gap' in service exists and urged strict setbacks and proof of need under federal rules.
A string of public commenters opposed a proposed ATLAS cell tower near the Mudbay residential area and asked the assembly to require applicants to demonstrate a legally defined "significant gap" in service before siting new wireless facilities.
Kip Kremoyan said neighbors collected roughly 50 petition signatures opposing a tower close to homes and recommended that the borough require applicants to demonstrate a significant gap in service coverage and to use the least intrusive means to address that gap. "I hope the PC and the assembly will insist that ATLAS must demonstrate that there is a significant gap in service," he said.
Chris Hackbarth expanded on property and health concerns and urged the assembly to require Atlas to show a factual basis for a gap before the planning commission considers an application. "Can folks who don't want to live close to one, can we even sell our land?" he asked, and cited the National Association of Realtors' findings that towers can reduce property values.
Speakers urged the assembly to keep setback distances strict and proposed a minimum 1,500‑foot setback for sensitive sites, mirroring distances they cited for schools and day‑care centers. Multiple commenters also noted existing alternatives—boosters, Starlink or other carriers—and urged the borough to prioritize least‑intrusive options ahead of tower siting.
The issue was discussed in the context of Ordinance 25‑07‑714 (communication equipment) and draft code language requiring minimum setbacks and an ability to reduce setbacks only where applicants demonstrate coverage gaps. The assembly heard requests that the planning commission require a factual demonstration from applicants and to preserve public review opportunities in deciding placements.
No final action was taken on the application or ordinance text at the Feb. 24 meeting; several residents said they will deliver petitions and written comments to the planning commission and assembly.
