Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NYSTROM Steven A From: ROSE Lynda L Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:19 AM To: MUIR Susan L; NYSTROM Steven A Subject: FW: FYI- ..... ~ri9ina~ Messa9e ..... From: martha f johnson [mailto:mjbeelady~juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:01 PM To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us; monancraig@pacinfo.com Subject: 11/30/04 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I am here today because my neighbors and I spent over 2 years and several thousand dollars fighting a cell phone tower in our River Road neighborhood. Since January of 2004 I have been living in the shadow of a so-called stealth design tower less than 150 feet from my house. Let me tell you that there is nothing stealthy about a 100 foot tall tower in such close proximity to your home. I don't want other homeowners to face this same kind of fight with the same outcome, thus I have been lobbying the Eugene City Council to amend its current code for 3 years. Current code leaves homeowners in mixed use areas vulnerable to property devaluation. This is why I researched and asked for setbacks from homes. The City Attorney does not believe that setbacks of 800 and 1000 feet will stand up in court, therefore he included a variance in the proposed revision, which essentially renders setback meaningless. The City Attorney's comments and the planning commission's analysis concur that the variance would become the standard pathway were the amendments adopted as written. I believe the city could codify shorter setback distances, giving the industry some room to work, while still allowing a buffer zone around homes and schools. I would like to see a code that has meaningful setbacks without a variance provision that gives industry the green light to site towers anywhere in town. I would like to see the telecom industry work as hard to be a good neighbor as it does to maximize profits. Minutes from a November 8 City Planning Commission meetin9 quote Ron Fowler, representin9 AT&T and Cingular. Mr. Fowler stated that his clients are seeking to site 8 new towers in Eugene next year, 6 in residential areas. He predicted that Eugene will see as many as 30 new cell tower applications in the comin~ year. With this kind of pressure on residential areas for the first time, I would urge the Council NOT to adopt the proposed revisions as written. The variance provision would allow an unprecedented incursion of towers into residential zones, leaving a~grieved homeowners little recourse other than lawsuits against the city and /or the site owner. Plannin~ staff has maintained that the current ordinance is serving the city pretty well, and might not need revision, based on the number of applications and the fact that most towers have been sited in commercial and industrial zones over the past several years. One 9rear strength of the current code is the 2000 foot separation it requires between new towers. If there is an onslaught of applications for new towers, the existing code will do far more to protect residential property values than the proposed variance. In conclusion, this attempt at a quick fix of the ordinance has not been effective. The one very positive aspect of the proposed amendments is the chan~e to subsection (11), which would make independent technical review a part of every telecom application. If it is possible for Council to pick and choose, I would recommend adoptin9 this chan~e and sendin~ the rest of the ordinance back to Planning Commission for a comprehensive rewrite. Respectfully submitted, !