Planning commission recommends balloon test as Atlas Towers trims Mud Bay cell tower design

The Haines Borough Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 26 reviewed Atlas Towers’ application for a land-use permit to place a cell tower on light-industrial land at North Sawmill and Chestnut near Mud Bay and recommended that the borough manager request a balloon test and neighbor notification so residents can see the tower at full height.

Manager Aleka told the commission Atlas responded to public concerns by reducing the tower height to 140 feet, removing a lattice design and proposing a monopine (tree-style) tower. She said Atlas also offered a voluntary setback equal to 150% of the tower’s height from residences and commercial buildings and that FAA approval had been obtained and filed with the borough.

The commission focused on four evaluation criteria the manager asked it to consider: off-site impacts (buffering and lighting), visual impacts to residential areas, habitat reclamation, and a safety plan in the event of structural failure. Planning staff clarified the parcel-plan meets a 50-foot setback requirement between industrial and residential properties and the applicant confirmed the tower compound will be a 50-by-50-foot fenced area with small equipment cabinets and no continuous lighting.

Resident Kip Kremoyan told the commission approximately 50 nearby residents had signed a petition opposing a tower at the site, saying many neighbors already have cell service and citing property-value, health (EMF) and visual concerns. “There is no significant gap here, and it certainly is not the least intrusive means to do that,” Kremoyan said, urging the commission to hold the industry to statutory standards.

Atlas representative Mr. Bingham said the company had worked with the borough and the community, that it had reduced the height and "is going to make it look like a tree to the best of our ability," and that the compound would include standard safety features. He also confirmed the compound would be fenced and that the facility would include small equipment cabinets rather than an occupiable building.

Commissioners split on whether the plan "sufficiently minimizes visual impacts" without further demonstration. Several members said a neighborhood balloon test would help neighbors and the commission evaluate how the tower would appear in the actual landscape and against the mountain backdrop. The commission therefore moved and approved a recommendation asking the manager to request the developer perform a balloon test on a day when nearby residents (the manager suggested notifying people within roughly 500 feet) could view it.

Commissioners also raised practical conditions and questions they want the manager to consider: anti-climbing measures, confirmation of an abandonment/removal clause (the manager said that clause exists in permit custody language), and whether a narrow monopole (no faux branches) might reduce certain forms of visual disruption. The recommendation to request a balloon test was a guidance action to the manager; the manager retains final approval authority for the land-use permit.

Next steps: the manager will receive the commission’s recommendations and the developer may be asked to schedule a balloon test and neighborhood notification; the manager indicated she intends to act on the application and incorporate any reasonable conditions.