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

Home Browse Search

Page 4 of 12 301 F.Supp,2d 1251 Page 3 (Cite as: 301 F.Supp.2d low-powered and requires line-of-sight to a tower, COnvenience, because the tower would improve the necessary antennae generally must be placed on indoor cellular telephone COverage (although the towers which loom over the landscape, commonly council found the. plaintiff did not prove its giving rise to opposition especially in residential assertion the tower would improve communications areas, for public-safety personnel). The COuncil further found the property was suited for the proposed use, Plaintiff submitted an application for a since the church's lot is large enough to COnditional-use permit to construct and maintain a a~commodate the tower and no other infrastructure 120-foot tower on residentially zoned property wOUld be necessary .to service the site. As for owned by the Golden Road Baptist Church in the requirement (e)the council found this was met. City of Hillsboro. The church site is surrounded on . all sides by residentially zoned property. Many of The council denied the permit because it 'the surrounding homes are 'between 100 and 200 determi.ned the proposal would not be in the public feet from the proposed site. As revealed by the interest' and would have a substantial adverse effect record, the proposed site'is in an area commonly off surrounding property owners' rights. Both of described as scenic, as it is surrounded by fir trees these findings were based on generally the same and is near wetlands and a greenway. Neighbors, evidence: There was no showing denying, the therefore, banded together to oppose plaintiffs application would harm the public interest since the permit application, tower would only improve what plaintiff calls "urban" coverage, meaning coverage indoors. In The Cit?s Zoning Hearings Board held public addition, both plaintiff and oPPonents testified hearings and accepted neighbors' opposition letters, plaintiff alternatively could have erected two towers The board also accepted a petition of over 50 at other sites, although plaintiff suggested this residents expressing opposition. "In addition,' the alternative would not have served its needs. The board had before it maps, simulated photographs, council further found the proposed tower would and aohart depicting the location of the city's negatively affect the aesthetic character of the wireless- telecommunications facilities. The board neighborhood, relying primarily on residents' applied Hilisboro Zoning Ordinance ("HZO") COncerns about the tower's effect on the 'No.1945, Section 83(9). This o/'dinance provides neighborhood's-natural surroundings, which include as follows: . an undeveloped greenway. The COuncil further The Commission or Hearings Board shall grant relied on simulated pictures showing what the tower approval only if the proposal, '1254 as wouldlook like. In addition, the council adopted the conditioned, is determined to conform to the board's findings distinguishing two prior permits following criteria: that had been granted to wireless providers for (a) The granting of the application would meet residential~area facilities: One of the facilities, the some public need or convenience, board found, was placed on an existing' light pole at (b) The granting of the application is in the public an athletic riel& The board also observed that the interest, other facility is located near a busy street and across (c) The property in question is reasonably suited from a commercial district. · for the use required. (d) The use requested would not have a While the council found there would be a negative substantial adverse effect on the rights of the aesthetic impact, it found the evidence inconclusive owners of surrounding properties., as to whether the tower would cause property values (e) The use requested would conform to the maps to decline. Plaintiff had submitted an expert report and the goals and policies of the Hillsboro which studied the effects of towers in other Comprehensive Plan. neighborhoods and which concluded there would be The board ultimately issued a written decision no adverse effect, In response, residents submitted denying plaintiffs application. Plaintiff appealed three letters from local realtors who concluded the the board's denial to the city council. The city tower would negatively affect property values. COuncil issued a written decision, adopting in part Based on this conflicting evidence, the COuncil did the board's written decision and ~ing the not base its decision on property devaluation and board's denial. The council found granting the determined property devaluation was not necessary application would meet a public need or for it to deny the application. Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works IV-60 http://print.west~aw.~~m/de~ivery.htm~? dest=atp&dataid=A~~5 58~~~~~~66 ~ 8~~~ ~ 9786 ~ ~... 4/14/2004