Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petersburg commissioners map proposed cell-tower overlay to steer tower siting
Summary
Commissioners agreed to use the borough's existing overlay template to create a cell-tower overlay (CTO), identified candidate borough, state, Forest Service and private parcels for inclusion, and set drafting steps: assemble parcel lists, create a map and legal descriptions, and tie standards to the borough's WCF ordinance.
The Petersburg Borough commission moved forward on a proposed cell-tower overlay (CTO) intended to give the borough a predictable list of preferred locations for wireless communication facilities. The commission agreed to use the borough's marine industrial overlay ordinance as a template and to produce a map and legal descriptions for parcels to include.
Commissioners asked staff to assemble the parcel lists and produce a draft ordinance. "We need to create an ordinance like the sample I gave you," staff advised, noting that legal descriptions can be time-consuming but that an initial parcel listing from the borough web-map viewer could suffice for a first draft. Commissioners said they would identify specific lots in writing and allow staff to convert those into a mapped overlay.
On scope, commissioners generally favored making wireless communication facilities (WCFs) a principal/by-right use within the overlay subject to objective standards, while reserving conditional-use review for proposals that exceed those standards. Commissioners discussed tying the overlay's standards to the existing WCF ordinance and adopting a setback equal to 110% of tower height, with towers over a commonly cited threshold (discussed at 200 feet) subject to conditional-use review.
The commission emphasized practical siting criteria: avoid residential proximity and sensitive recreation or anadromous stream buffers, prefer elevated parcels with existing road and power access, and include existing upland tower sites on Forest Service land (for example, Crystal Mountain and Lindenberg Peak). Commissioners proposed designating portions or strips of large lots so towers could be located away from residences or on sections of a single parcel that are less visible.
Public commenters raised environmental and health cautions. Merle Hammer said towers can "impact lakes and streams primarily through biological effects on aquatic life," and urged avoiding recreation and stream buffers. Commissioners responded they would consider buffers and encouraged public notice in any overlay process so private owners could object or request inclusion.
Next steps agreed by the commission: each commissioner will identify candidate parcels and return them to staff in writing so staff can prepare a map, legal descriptions and a draft ordinance for the commission's review at a future meeting.
