News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
Because of a recent surge in tower-siting requests, Read wants the county to immediately adopt "an interim ordinance that sets clear and objective standards for the siting of cell towers...to provide a `safe harbor' for towers while significantly limiting their potential impacts on surrounding neighbors."
On January 23, Read told the county planning commission that "current land use regulations that apply to wireless communication towers are vague and the vagueness of the regulations create a potential problem that the Planning Division will be unable to deal with."
Read said that there are applications for four towers pending, and the possibility of 10 to 15 more in the next several months.
Recently, a county hearings officer denied a cell tower on Wild Horse Ridge just east of Sisters, and that case is under appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. Another application east of Bend stirred a storm of objections from nearby residents on January 22.
If other applications are as controversial, Read said it would be "impossible for us to manage the number of applications within our means."
The interim standards Read proposes would dictate set backs from property lines depending on the height of a tower, and would require screening of any building used as part of the facility.
He suggests a set back of five feet for each foot of tower (e.g. a 60-foot pole would require a 300 foot set back; a 125-foot pole would require a 625-foot set back).
An alternative standard would allow towers to be sited 300 feet from an existing dwelling if the tower does not extend above the horizon when viewed from neighboring property lines. Exceptions could be granted if all adjacent property owners sign written waivers.
Read has asked that the county planning commission and board of county commissioners meet in a workshop to adopt the interim ordinance.
Planning Commissioner Paul Bianchina was concerned that the proposed interim siting standards would not offer residents enough protection, and asked Read why a moratorium could not be imposed.
Read responded that he felt a moratorium, "which requires at least 45 days notice, would do little more than flush out many applications prior to enactment and exacerbate the problem."
He also worried that some applications might be filed only to preserve the option of siting a cell tower.
A permanent ordinance to minimize the impact of towers that would possibly be less restrictive for cell phone companies could be enacted after a special committee studies possible ordinances, Read suggested.
Reader Comments(0)