Thanks for the info.  I would welcome a three year delay.  The best site for the
cellular company is actual north and east of the proposed site and the best site
for the fire company is west and south.  There are also several existing sites
that offer co-location potential but it is being said that this site is the best
solution.  Given three years to think about it, the applicants may decide (as
they did in the case you mention) to find another site.

George Kramer wrote:

> About ten years ago Pacific Northwest Bell (now US West) wanted to put a 60'
> tall microwave tower atop a pre-exisiting non-contributing building in the
> Ashland [Oregon] Railroad Historic District (then a DOE, now formally
> listed).  Having gone through the local planning process unscathed, despite
> strong neighborhood opposition, PNB claimed they had no other option that
> was feasible for the tower.  The local Historic Commission chair wrote to
> the FCC and pointed out that the proposal would have a substantial impact on
> an eligible district.  The FCC decided the issues were substantial enough to
> warrant a hearing, then running about 3 years wait.  PNB put its tower
> across the valley, next to the freeway.
>
> George Kramer, M.S.
> Historic Preservation Consultant
> Ashland, Oregon 97520
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: T. Gale <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:29 PM
> Subject: Cellular Towers and Historic Distrists
>
> > I would like to hear about any successes and/or defeats in fighting the
> > introduction of cellular telecommunication towers in or adjacent to
> > local and/or State and National Register of Historic Properties or
> > Districts.  I'm especially interested in what worked or didn't work in
> > arguing against them.
> >
> > We are in a situation where we have several applications for local
> > zoning board approval of variance requests to locate 120' to 150'
> > monopoles in or adjacent to several overlapping local and State and
> > National Register Historic Districts.  The districts include local
> > villages that have remained essentially unchanged since the 1850's and
> > included outstanding examples of architecturally and historically
> > significant resources.  We have a cellular ordinance that prohibits
> > towers within 500' of residences, parks, historic districts, etc.  The
> > proposed tower sites include multiple restricted features within the
> > 500' radius.  The applications could probably be easily dismissed except
> > for the fact that the cellular companies have cleverly offered to make
> > our volunteer fire companies co-users of the towers in exchange for use
> > of their property.  The cellular companies have also agreed to pay the
> > fire company several thousand dollars per month.  The fire companies
> > have pre-existing communication problems and they argue that the tower
> > will offer a solution to the problem at no cost to local residents.
> > Local Historic and Environmental Commissions as well as County and State
> > offices and organizations have gone on record opposing the sitings, but
> > I think members of the zoning board are very sympathetic to the needs of
> > and benefits to the local fire companies.  Has anyone resolved
> > applications in similar situations?
> >
> > Thanks for any help you can offer.
> >
> > Tom Gale
> >