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

Home Browse Search

" 7 increase setbacks from residences in order to reduce its exposure to potential litigation by aggrieved homeowners. See Attachment B for full text articles and citations regarding property devaluation. In the interest of consistency with recently adopted Lane County Code 16.264, we . propose a 1200 foot minimum setback from the nearest residence~ (Although Lane Code 16.264 now calls for a 1000 foot' setback from homes, work is underway to amend the setback to 1200 feet, from homes and Schools.) See Attachment G, Lane County Code 16.264. ^ 1200 foot setback from schools is needed because cell towers have been identified as an "attractive nuisance." Children and teenagers are attracted to climb towers, and have fallen to their deaths in other communities. ^ 1200 foot setback from' schools is among the soon-to-be adopted revisions to Lane County's new telecommunications ordinance. With regard to mechanical safety in case of tower failure, we p~ropose that in addition to the setbacks from homes and schools as proposed above, towers in all zones should be set back from the property boundary a distance that is equal to at least the height of the tower. Current code language requires little or no setback from property boundaries in some zones, which could result in property damage~ 'injUry, or death in case of tower failure. EC 9.5750(10) Removal of facilities. Again, the landlord should be made aware of his potential liability up front. Current code states that the city "may require the posting of an open-ended bond before development issuance t° ensure removal..." This language should be strengthened' so that a bond is required as part of the application process. Recent economic downturns in the telecommunications industry highlight the need for this provision. If a service provider goes bankrupt but posted a bond with their application fee, the cost of removal is already covered. EC 9.5750(11) Fees. Existing code has a provision for independent technical review of telecom applications; however, it is weakly worded and cumbersome to implement, due to the need for the City Manager's involvement. It is telling that this provision has never yet been utilized. To illustrate, EC 9.5750 (11 ) Fees~ states: "notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the city manager may require, as part of application fees for building or land use permits for telecommunication facilities, an amount su~cient to recover all of the city's costs in retaining consultants to verify statements made in conjunction with the permit application, to the extent that verification requires telecommunications expertise." See Attachment H (full text of EC 9.5750). ' During public comment on the Villard proposal (SR-01-32), the Fairmount Neighborhood requested that there be independent technical review of the IV-80