Planning commission okays cell tower

Despite disagreements among its members, and strong opposition from two local residents, the Sisters Urban Area Planning Commission recommended on November 15 that the city council approve the construction of a wireless communications tower -- or towers -- within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary.

At the marathon, three-hour public hearing, the dispute among the commissioners centered on one issue: the height of the tower. Citizen speakers, however, objected to both the proposed height and the tower's location.

Spectrasite Communications, the applicant, sought a 150-foot tower height. But commissioners Deborah Kollodge, Darryl Carper, and chair Wayne Kimball were concerned that the requested height would allow the tower to protrude some 30 feet above the shielding tree line and unnecessarily obstruct the view for citizens.

They concluded that, in Carper's words, the tower should "...be as low as it possibly can be...at the minimum height to do the job."

Over the nay votes of members Dorro Sokol and Lee Currie, the long-debated application passed by a 3-2 margin.

Commission approval means the application will continue on a fast track. It will be taken up by the council at its next meeting, November 23. City officials expect that if the application is approved, a contract could be signed by December 1.

The beginning hour of the hearing featured a team of cell tower professionals taking turns in pleading the case for applicant Spectrasite, a national corporation that builds towers and sells the resulting transmission capacity to wireless service providers.

The application asks approval to erect the tower upon the Section 9 site where the city is constructing its new sewer treatment facility. Tower construction Project Manager Laura Bishop stressed repeatedly that Spectrasite was directed there by the Sisters City Council.

However, Howard Paine, of the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County (ARLU DeCo) questioned the legality of the proposal. He unsuccessfully argued that the city's recent intergovernmental agreement with the county precluded the erection of tower(s) on the Section 9 parcel.

A copy of that agreement, Paine said, signed by the three county commissioners on September 27 and by the mayor the next day, states that "...the City...will limit the permitted uses on the site to a wastewater treatment facility and ground applications of treated effluent."

In rebuttal, Portland-based Spectrasite attorney Mike Robinson argued that the covenant (contract) did not preclude other uses, such as a tower, under a conditional use permit (CUP). City Planner Neil Thompson agreed with Robinson and submitted a document, unsigned as yet, in which the county would grant a CUP allowing the tower(s') siting.

Thompson stated that the original copy of the document had already been signed, and that he would soon have it.

The second opponent, area Realtor Jackie Herring, said he spoke for his client David Herman, owner of the Lazy Z Ranch. The 1,300-acre spread adjoins the proposed site. Herring said the proposed location of the tower would interfere with the view of the Sisters mountains from not only Herman's property and those of other nearby owners, but also from residences on McKinney Butte.

"It would also ruin the view along Highway 20 coming west from Bend to Sisters," he warned.

Speaking to The Nugget the next day, Herman, himself an attorney, outlined another objection:

"This property (Section 9) is currently zoned Public Facility -- what's public about the applicant? They're a private company.

"If the city justifies this by saying Spectrasite is providing a service to the public over public airways, then what's to prevent Ford Motor Company coming in and demanding it be allowed to locate a plant there too?" Herman said.

"After all,", he reasoned, "Ford cars serve the public and use roads which are public thoroughfares."

City Planner Thompson disagreed. He stated that Sisters Public Facility zoning allows conditional use permits for such towers. According to Thompson, locating additional towers within the city would negatively affect the view for the general public. Facilitating tower placement on the outskirts of the city, he reasoned, would be in the best public interest and, therefore, meet the test.

The ultimate resolution of the application process may not be swift. Herman said that, in the event the city approved the application, he was confident that an appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals in Salem would prevail

"This whole process smacks of corruption...of back door smoke and mirrors," he said. "I'd have no objection if they (the city) had openly moved to change the site to appropriate zoning.

"But, as it stands," he continued, "the city is competing with private landowners who invested in properly zoned land and is interfering with their opportunity for profit. It makes the city's land use policy fall right on its face."