Item 3 - PH/Ord. on Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECEIVED July :~6,.~,oo4 . JUL 2 9 ~0(}/~ City A~torney city Eugene 36o East ~ot~ Ave., Suite Soo Eugene V401 . ge: anendments to Cell Tower Ordnance (Eugene Co e Dear CityAttorneys: I am writing in response to a request from your office for comments on the proposed amendments to EC 9.575o. Having spent over two years organizing a fight against a tower in my own neighborhood, I am well aware of the strengths and deficits in the current ordinance. In section (7)(d), I was pleased to see the proposal for setbacks of 8oo feet from residential zoning, and zooo feet from public schools. A strong setback requirement preserves residential property values, and helps protect the City from lawsuits brought by aggrieved homeowners. It also addresses the iSsue of attractive nuisance. However, I noted with concern that the proposed code makes an exception to thiS requirement in C-z and GO zones. It is not dear to me whether the language in (7)(d)2, which states" 800 feet from ALL residentially zoned property" (emphasiS mine), would allow new towers located on C-1 or GO zoned property to be set back a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower from adjacent property lines and streets, or whether the 800 and loo~foot setbacks would still apply, ifa public school or residential zoning were within those distances. Clarification iS needed. A review of the City zoning map makes it clear that C-~ and GO zoned properties are scattered throughout the City, and occur most frequently in mixed-use areas. Therefore a lesser setback in Cq and GO will inevitably impact residences. An ordinance which facilitates building towers in mixed-use areas will devalue properties, create visual blight, and in general, make those areas less desirable. This is at odds with the City's nodal development program, which I believe has the goal of making Eugene's mixed use areas' more livable, and more desirable. I strongly recommend that the setbaCk requirements should apply without exception, in all zones. If there iS a call from the industry for areas of reduced setback, these should be allowed only in the heavier industrial ZoneS. Another concern I had iS with (9)(d), variance. The amendment as written seems to assume that visual blight iS the primary reason for setback. Property values can be impacted negatively bY the proximity of a tower, regardless of how visible or how ugly it is. This is because potential buyers may be wary of potential health hazards associated with radio frequency emissions. The Federal ' Telecommunications Act of 1996 forbids local jurisdictions from regulating tower placement' based on health concerns, but it does not forbid local governments IV-54