On May 8, a joint hearing of the Bridger Canyon Planning & Zoning Commission and the County Commission will consider a proposed Personal Wireless Services (i.e. cell towers) amendment to the Bridger Canyon Zoning.
History
When BCPOA surveyed the canyon in 2009, there was a mixture of enthusiasm for and concern about cell service and cell towers.
Bridger Canyon zoning does not provide specifically for a cell tower. To approve a tower under the existing zoning, the commission would have to find that it is a “similar use” to some existing microwave or “community receiving antenna” designations. Then a tower could be permitted as a Conditional use, with no specific standards.
The likely first site for a cell tower is Bridger Bowl. Atlas Towers and Verizon are evidently seeking additional sites in the Green Mountain/Kelly Canyon area.
The Amendment
When Atlas Towers initially proposed 130′ and 150′ towers in 2013, BCPOA and the Zoning Advisory Board felt that it would be far better to have objective standards for towers. A zoning amendment was initiated for this purpose.
The draft was created by the Zoning Advisory Board over about six months, approved by consensus, and submitted to the county for review. The Advisory Board’s draft set a height limit of 70 feet or 30 feet above the tree canopy, a setback of 300% of tower height, and required that towers not break the skyline as seen from Bridger Canyon, Jackson Creek, and Kelly Canyon roads. These provisions were designed to mitigate visual and property value impacts on neighbors, consistent with the General Plan goals of preservation of natural resources and the rural atmosphere of the canyon. Lower heights may eventually require a few more towers, but this was felt to be a good tradeoff, because low structures are much easier to conceal against a backdrop of trees.
The County Attorney’s review relaxed the standards proposed by the advisory board, providing unlimited height, 150% setbacks, and a discretionary skylining provision. BCPOA objected, and asked that the Zoning Advisory Board’s judgment be restored. A few other provisions, like bonding to ensure removal of unused towers, were also made discretionary rather than mandatory.
In the text that will be considered on May 8, the county partially relented on height, which is now limited to 100 feet or 40 feet above the tree canopy. For comparison, Bridger Bowl rejected Atlas Towers’ proposal of a 130′ tower near A Lot, but is considering towers of about half that height. Kent Madin organized a meeting with Verizon engineers, who spoke confidently of towers in the vicinity of 55 feet or 10 to 20 feet above the tree canopy.
The text of the proposed amendment is here: BCZAC CellTowerRegs4.2014
What do you think?
If you would like to convey your opinion to the commissions, there are two options:
– testimony will be taken at the hearing on May 8; see the meeting notice
– written testimony can be submitted via the Gallatin County Planning Department, 311 W Main, Room 108, Bozeman MT, or planning@gallatin.mt.gov
Bridger Canyon Zoning Updates 
approved with Zoning Advisory Board stricter height and setback limitations and answers to the following:
As the proposal is now written all the discussion about “mature vegetative canopy” is irrelevant because the applicant can automatically build to 100 ft. And if the surrounding canopy is 150′, then the trees can be removed to prevent signal degradation or interference. Even if the tower is placed in an old growth forest the trees can be removed.
I don’t see any limit on the distance from the tower that trees can be removed. Does this in any way give the applicant the right to remove or trim vegetation on an adjoining property? If my property is uphill from a tower and my trees are 120′ tall, does the “utility” have any sort of air rights over my property where they can claim my trees are interfering with transmission of the signal to someone beyond my property?
If a PUD allows for “personal communication devices”, would the applicant be subject to height and setback restrictions that apply to property owners within that PUD, or would they be subject to the new proposed guidelines for cell towers? What, if any, restrictions would apply in a PUD?
I would recommend we require any vegetation be native Montana vegetation consistent and compatible with the existing surrounding vegetation. Some plants can introduce disease to surrounding vegetation. Certain trees and shrubs act as hosts for diseases that will kill other trees. For example, junipers can transmit fire blight to apple trees. Usually fatal.
I further recommend any, and all, modification, removal, installation, or replacement of vegetation be done by, or under the direct supervision of a Certified, Licensed, and Insured Arborist. If we need an engineer or architect to submit construction plans it would seem wise to have a professional arborist guide them in maintaining the vegetation we are striving to preserve.
There appear to be any number of restrictions that an applicant can circumvent by requesting
an exception be made by the Zoning Board. This can be a dangerous precedent and lead to possible problems like we have already experienced. It would seem to most reasonable people that if the applicant requires an exception to build then he has not chosen the site wisely to begin with.
Hi Carol –
There’s nothing in the zoning that could compel a neighbor to remove interfering vegetation.
I think you’d have to amend a PUD to include such a use, and it would have to be inside a building envelope like everything else, which would place it close to an owners’ home, so it seems unlikely to happen.
“It would seem to most reasonable people that if the applicant requires an exception to build then he has not chosen the site wisely to begin with.” – this applies to a lot of things. It should probably be on the cover of the zoning regs!
Tom,
take a look at “air rights” in Wikipedia with the thought that cell phone service, while considered a “luxury” by some today will be a “public utility” within a few years. I’m not so sure I would want a utility to exercise eminent domain of the air rights over my property so they can top my trees for the common good.
Yes, I care a lot about trees, which is also why I believe it would be a really good idea to insist that anyone working on clearing, trimming, landscaping, etc be a certified, licensed arborist. Hat racking a tree is often a death sentence for the tree. “The right tree in the right place” is the first rule of landscaping….thus the thought that use of native plants in keeping with existing vegetation is the most economical and appropriate method to conceal the base equipment of a cell tower.
I doubt that many towers will be needed in a few years, because small, distributed sites will be the norm. So, hopefully this won’t happen.
Tom If we’re lucky, Bain from Google X will have zeppelins broadcasting broadband soon. The FAA may not be too happy with that idea but it will be THEIR problem at that point.
sent from my iPhone
>