An article in the Denver post about own town's struggle:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11586363
Monday, February 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Conclusion
Sorry it's taken a while to get back here. The conclusion on the cell phone tower matter is ....
THE 180' CELL PHONE TOWER APPLICATION WAS DENIED
Congratulations and many thanks to everyone who wrote letters, attended meetings, contributed etc. The primary reason for the P&Z and Commissioners decision to deny was in fact the public outcry against it. Hurray!!!
I returned from a trip to India (Trivandrum glutted with cell towers ironically) at the end of October to find that the P&Z had after all --- after the Commnet agreement was signed with the town of La Veta and then approved by the County --- and after duly inviting the tower applicant to the meeting --- met and decided to recommend that the Commissioners deny the tower application. The commissioners then met and denied the tower application. Thank you to these folks for listening and following the process as is their job.
I'll leave this blog up for a little while longer and then retire it. Who cares to look at this webpage now when we still, gratefully, have beautiful, pure mountain vistas to gaze at?
THE 180' CELL PHONE TOWER APPLICATION WAS DENIED
Congratulations and many thanks to everyone who wrote letters, attended meetings, contributed etc. The primary reason for the P&Z and Commissioners decision to deny was in fact the public outcry against it. Hurray!!!
I returned from a trip to India (Trivandrum glutted with cell towers ironically) at the end of October to find that the P&Z had after all --- after the Commnet agreement was signed with the town of La Veta and then approved by the County --- and after duly inviting the tower applicant to the meeting --- met and decided to recommend that the Commissioners deny the tower application. The commissioners then met and denied the tower application. Thank you to these folks for listening and following the process as is their job.
I'll leave this blog up for a little while longer and then retire it. Who cares to look at this webpage now when we still, gratefully, have beautiful, pure mountain vistas to gaze at?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Latest Updates
10/14> The issue of the cell tower was not addressed at today's meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, except to put it back on the table for the next meeting. They stated that not being on the agenda this week, they could not address the issue with a recommendation. The issue is now on the agenda of the P&Z for 1: 30, October 28, and the County Commissioners are scheduled to address it the next day at 10:00 AM. It's important to attend the 10/28 meeting, but EXTRA IMPORTANT to be at the meeting at 10:00 the next morning.
10/7> The La Veta Town Board voted to enter into a five-year lease with Commnet Communications, bringing $750 per month and improved cell phone service to the town.
9/25>
At the 9/23 P&Z meeting, the Commnet proposal (0843) was approved by the P&Z. The Subcarrier Communications application (0831) was tabled.
Details on 0831 discussion: The P&Z presented to Mickey Villella that they had received over 200 letters from the public in opposition to the tower that could not be ignored. Villella then asked if any of them contained anything "besides the aesthetic issue". Vizanni's response was (paraphrased) "No, not really... except some debatable language from the Land Use Guide." (He must have missed my letter, and many of the other, carefully thought out and written, letters I have read.) The need to heal the huge rift in the community caused by the 'tactics of the opposition' was the primary reason given for tabling the tower. Villella then responded (later confirmed largely inaccurately) to some questions from the audience. Villella was then told by Andreatta that he had been very patient. The overall slant and tone of the conversation was upsetting to a few of us in the audience. The tower was nevertheless, with regrets and apologies, soflty tabled.
At the 9/24 County Commissioners meeting, the Comment proposal was approved. The Subcarrier Communications application was not voted on, because it was tabled by the P&Z the day before. The decision to table it by the P&Z was explained by John Galusha to the County Commissioners as follows: The decision on the application was tabled until such time as the Commnet contract with the Town of La Veta for antennas on the water tank is solidified AND if the town of La Veta enters into an agreement with Commnet to provide cell service, then the 180 foot tower at the proposed location will NOT be necessary. An estimated 40 or so citizens were in attendance at this 9/24 meeting and witnessed this.
Further discussion at the 9/24 meeting: Galusha informed that on 9/23 the P&Z suggested that the Subcarrier applicant look at another location, such as one on County Road 450, although the applicant may run into some opposition there as well, and that the P&Z seem to have agreed that the Master Plan for the county to be created in 2009 should include a communications plan. A request was made by a citizen for a moratorium on new cell tower applications until the communications plan is done. A forum for community input into the communications plan was also suggested.
Conclusion/Discussion: At this point, the P&Z has stated they will reject the 180' tower application if the Commnet contract is signed with La Veta. This is the first step and must occur. Any new attempt by the same applicant would then require a new application. In order to avoid a cycle of more frustrating mis-guided attempts and exausting oppositions, a moratorium on more towers until the 2009 communications plan is in place should occur. It is not be possible for ANY tower - no matter how high - to cover the entire county. Places like Bear Lake are hard to cover - massive tower or not - certainly no 180' tower at La Veta Cty Rd 360 would reach to Bear Lake above Cuchara. The P&Z should not be mislead into thinking that a tall tower is the answer to all the injuries in the county.
The communications plan planning process should hear from the public and assess:
9/17> Video from 9/10 rally courtesy of Barbara Jabaily and Mary Jo Mauro of DreamTellerVideo.com:
9/13> Timeline:
8/19> Due to the applicant's failure to notify all adjacent property owners, the Public Hearing 8/19 has been postponed. The P&Z will decide on rescheduling the Public Hearing at their next regular meeting, which is August 26 at 2pm.
10/7> The La Veta Town Board voted to enter into a five-year lease with Commnet Communications, bringing $750 per month and improved cell phone service to the town.
9/25>
At the 9/23 P&Z meeting, the Commnet proposal (0843) was approved by the P&Z. The Subcarrier Communications application (0831) was tabled.
Details on 0831 discussion: The P&Z presented to Mickey Villella that they had received over 200 letters from the public in opposition to the tower that could not be ignored. Villella then asked if any of them contained anything "besides the aesthetic issue". Vizanni's response was (paraphrased) "No, not really... except some debatable language from the Land Use Guide." (He must have missed my letter, and many of the other, carefully thought out and written, letters I have read.) The need to heal the huge rift in the community caused by the 'tactics of the opposition' was the primary reason given for tabling the tower. Villella then responded (later confirmed largely inaccurately) to some questions from the audience. Villella was then told by Andreatta that he had been very patient. The overall slant and tone of the conversation was upsetting to a few of us in the audience. The tower was nevertheless, with regrets and apologies, soflty tabled.
At the 9/24 County Commissioners meeting, the Comment proposal was approved. The Subcarrier Communications application was not voted on, because it was tabled by the P&Z the day before. The decision to table it by the P&Z was explained by John Galusha to the County Commissioners as follows: The decision on the application was tabled until such time as the Commnet contract with the Town of La Veta for antennas on the water tank is solidified AND if the town of La Veta enters into an agreement with Commnet to provide cell service, then the 180 foot tower at the proposed location will NOT be necessary. An estimated 40 or so citizens were in attendance at this 9/24 meeting and witnessed this.
Further discussion at the 9/24 meeting: Galusha informed that on 9/23 the P&Z suggested that the Subcarrier applicant look at another location, such as one on County Road 450, although the applicant may run into some opposition there as well, and that the P&Z seem to have agreed that the Master Plan for the county to be created in 2009 should include a communications plan. A request was made by a citizen for a moratorium on new cell tower applications until the communications plan is done. A forum for community input into the communications plan was also suggested.
Conclusion/Discussion: At this point, the P&Z has stated they will reject the 180' tower application if the Commnet contract is signed with La Veta. This is the first step and must occur. Any new attempt by the same applicant would then require a new application. In order to avoid a cycle of more frustrating mis-guided attempts and exausting oppositions, a moratorium on more towers until the 2009 communications plan is in place should occur. It is not be possible for ANY tower - no matter how high - to cover the entire county. Places like Bear Lake are hard to cover - massive tower or not - certainly no 180' tower at La Veta Cty Rd 360 would reach to Bear Lake above Cuchara. The P&Z should not be mislead into thinking that a tall tower is the answer to all the injuries in the county.
The communications plan planning process should hear from the public and assess:
- Where in the county do we need cell service now?
- Where is our protected view shed where we don't want ugly communications towers?
9/17> Video from 9/10 rally courtesy of Barbara Jabaily and Mary Jo Mauro of DreamTellerVideo.com:
9/13> Timeline:
- On 9/19 - the deadline for public input to the P&Z and County Commissioners. Letters received at the courthouse by this date will be read.
- On 9/23 - the P&Z will meet and receive the advice of John Galusha, County Administrator, on the tower issue. In the same meeting, they will decide on the P&Z recommendation to the County Commissioners.
- On 9/24 - the County Commissioners will meet and will hear the P&Z recommendation and decide whether to vote on the 180 foot cell tower application then, or postpone the vote.
- See "What You Can Do" below for more details.
9/13> Recent developments:
- The Town Board of La Veta has sent a letter to the County in opposition to the proposed tower (letter below).
- Over 40 people spontaneously protested the tower and picketed in downtown La Veta on Saturday 8/6.
- The Town Board of La Veta met with the County Commissioners and discussed the Alltel and Commnet proposals that are now on the table. According to one board member, at this point, the town is 90-99% likely to pass these alternative solutions.
- About 80 people, including some P&Z commissioners, attended the Public Rally at Ricky Tims this Wednesday.
- More than 40 businesses in town have signed as being opposed to this tower. See "What You Can Do", on how you can sign.
9/7> Check out Larry Hill's web site of beautiful photos of La Veta: http://www.pbase.com/fletcher_hill/la_veta
(thank you, Larry, this is why we care...)
His letter to the commissioners is also posted at the bottom of this page, showing how many people around the world pay attention to the beauty and uniqueness of this area.
9/2> Commnet Wireless presented a proposal at the La Veta Town board meeting for 6 flush mount antennas on the sides of the 2nd town water tank. (Alltel is applying for a panel around the 1st). This would provide service for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile customers, as well as other international carriers. The antennas would be painted to match the tanks. A visual simulation was presented. There would be 2 antennas pointing towards Cuchara, 2 towards La Veta Pass and 2 towards HWY 12 and 160 intersection. They would use the same contract with the town as is established by Alltel. Commnet stated that these will provide coverage for all and will be the best solution. Their goal would be to adjust/remedy Cuchara as needed to make Hwy 12 coverage between La Veta and Cuchara seamless. The motion to enter contract negotiations via the town attorney (like the Alltel contract) was made because it could represent up to $18,000 in revenue to the town. It was passed unanimously.
9/2> At the same town meeting, a request was made by a La Veta citizen for permission to fly a large red balloon to the height of the proposed Subcarrier Communications tower on the town lakes property, which is adjacent to the proposed site, for the purpose of allowing people a visual reference of the tower height. The request was granted for the duration of Sept 3 - Oct 2 unanimously with the stipulation that the balloon be monitored onsite at all times while in flight.
8/26> The P&Z decided in the 8/26 meeting to not hold a Public Hearing on this tower. There will be a rally to oppose the cell tower - "Service, YES! Tower, NO!" - September 10, 7pm at Ricky Tims Quilt Gallery. All are welcome.
- Come see a slide show of visual simulation of the tower!
- Come hear much more about the tower!
- Come eat, drink, and listen to music by Ken Saydak!
- Come help!
8/19> Due to the applicant's failure to notify all adjacent property owners, the Public Hearing 8/19 has been postponed. The P&Z will decide on rescheduling the Public Hearing at their next regular meeting, which is August 26 at 2pm.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Is this the Best Solution?
Accurate depiction of the proposed new 180' monopole as seen from a field near the La Veta Cemetary. 
Accurate depiction of the proposed new 180' monopole as seen overlooking the valley and mountains from W. Francisco St.
Huerfano Land Use Guide:
"Above ground telecommunications facilities, particularly towers, antennas and related commercial communications fixtures shall be grouped or clustered and wherever feasible located east of Interstate Highway I-25 and north of Highway 10. Under no circumstances shall such facilities be located within a SCO Scenic Conservation Overlay District or location that obstructs or infringes on ridge line views or other local scenic features."
"Scenic conservation corridors are areas adjacent to and extending beyond state or federal highways in Huerfano county and areas of otherwise special scenic interest that offer mountain, canyon, plains and mountain-plains vistas of uncommon natural beauty. The scenic vistas visible from these corridors include high peaks, subalpine parks, and meadowlands, igneous rock formations and transitional foothills. The purpose of the establishment of these corridors does not preclude development thereon. But it requires that such development be sited, constructed and finished in a manner that is compatible with, in harmony with, and does not intrude upon the existing vistas. The designated scenic corridors include: ...
03. The area east of Highway 12 between the highway's first crossing of the Cucharas River south of La Veta and the summit of Cucharas Pass."
Information on the Tower
Overview :
Subcarrier Communications (Old Bridge, NJ) via local representative Mickey Villella is seeking a Conditional use Permit from Huerfano Co. for a 180 foot cell phone tower, unlit monopole (no guy wires), just east of the town water tanks on land owned by Charles R. Briggs. The location is not within the municipality of La Veta. Zoning is agricultural.
The proposed 180' mono pole cell phone tower site is adjacent to County Road 360 (Birch Street) on the right side of the road as one drives from town, at the elbow of the last right-turn in the road immediately before the straightaway that goes past the town/fishing lakes. It abuts the barbed-wire divider between the town property to the South and the private property to the North.
It is a proposed 80'x90' fenced compound with 4" of concrete/stone throughout, and up to 4 25'x15' lease areas and equipment shelters. The 180' monopole would have an 8' lightening rod, total = 188'. The Site Plan states that upon approval of CUP, the site will be built out with an approximate completion time of 2 months.
During a meeting with the Huerfano Co. Planning and Zoning Commission on 7/22, the applicant for the tower indicated that they were in a hurry and asked for an up or down vote at that time. Federal subsidies given for cell phone towers in rural locations in 2007 equaled $1.12 billion. The Federal Communications Commission recently voted to cap the subsidy program. It is unknown if this is the reason for applicant being in a hurry.
Construction of new towers is unlikely in 5-7 years and they’d have up to 10 years to take it down, if the company is still in business. There is the question of who will take it down if company files bankruptcy.
What does the County Land Use Guide Say?
According to the Huerfano Land Use Guide, constuction of a tower at the proposed location is not compliant with the permitted uses of agricultural zoning by right. Understanding this, the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the County. When a CUP is applied for, the proposed conditional use needs to be consistent with the Land Use Guide. The following language from Section 2.11.05 in the guide indicates that it is not:
"Above ground telecommunications facilities, particularly towers, antennas and related commercial communications fixtures shall be grouped or clustered and wherever feasible located east of Interstate Highway I-25 and north of Highway 10. Under no circumstances shall such facilities be located within a SCO Scenic Conservation Overlay District or location that obstructs or infringes on ridge line views or other local scenic features."
In addition, page 43 of the Land Use Guide describes the location of the proposed cell tower as being within a Scenic Conservation Overlay district:
"Scenic Conservation Corridors and Sites
Scenic conservation corridors are areas adjacent to and extending beyond state or federal highways in Huerfano county and areas of otherwise special scenic interest that offer mountain, canyon, plains and mountain-plains vistas of uncommon natural beauty. The scenic vistas visible from these corridors include high peaks, subalpine parks, and meadowlands, igneous rock formations and transitional foothills. The purpose of the establishment of these corridors does not preclude development thereon. But it requires that such development be sited, constructed and finished in a manner that is compatible with, in harmony with, and does not intrude upon the existing vistas. The designated scenic corridors include:
Subcarrier Communications (Old Bridge, NJ) via local representative Mickey Villella is seeking a Conditional use Permit from Huerfano Co. for a 180 foot cell phone tower, unlit monopole (no guy wires), just east of the town water tanks on land owned by Charles R. Briggs. The location is not within the municipality of La Veta. Zoning is agricultural.
The proposed 180' mono pole cell phone tower site is adjacent to County Road 360 (Birch Street) on the right side of the road as one drives from town, at the elbow of the last right-turn in the road immediately before the straightaway that goes past the town/fishing lakes. It abuts the barbed-wire divider between the town property to the South and the private property to the North.
It is a proposed 80'x90' fenced compound with 4" of concrete/stone throughout, and up to 4 25'x15' lease areas and equipment shelters. The 180' monopole would have an 8' lightening rod, total = 188'. The Site Plan states that upon approval of CUP, the site will be built out with an approximate completion time of 2 months.
During a meeting with the Huerfano Co. Planning and Zoning Commission on 7/22, the applicant for the tower indicated that they were in a hurry and asked for an up or down vote at that time. Federal subsidies given for cell phone towers in rural locations in 2007 equaled $1.12 billion. The Federal Communications Commission recently voted to cap the subsidy program. It is unknown if this is the reason for applicant being in a hurry.
Construction of new towers is unlikely in 5-7 years and they’d have up to 10 years to take it down, if the company is still in business. There is the question of who will take it down if company files bankruptcy.
What does the County Land Use Guide Say?
According to the Huerfano Land Use Guide, constuction of a tower at the proposed location is not compliant with the permitted uses of agricultural zoning by right. Understanding this, the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the County. When a CUP is applied for, the proposed conditional use needs to be consistent with the Land Use Guide. The following language from Section 2.11.05 in the guide indicates that it is not:
"Above ground telecommunications facilities, particularly towers, antennas and related commercial communications fixtures shall be grouped or clustered and wherever feasible located east of Interstate Highway I-25 and north of Highway 10. Under no circumstances shall such facilities be located within a SCO Scenic Conservation Overlay District or location that obstructs or infringes on ridge line views or other local scenic features."
In addition, page 43 of the Land Use Guide describes the location of the proposed cell tower as being within a Scenic Conservation Overlay district:
"Scenic Conservation Corridors and Sites
Scenic conservation corridors are areas adjacent to and extending beyond state or federal highways in Huerfano county and areas of otherwise special scenic interest that offer mountain, canyon, plains and mountain-plains vistas of uncommon natural beauty. The scenic vistas visible from these corridors include high peaks, subalpine parks, and meadowlands, igneous rock formations and transitional foothills. The purpose of the establishment of these corridors does not preclude development thereon. But it requires that such development be sited, constructed and finished in a manner that is compatible with, in harmony with, and does not intrude upon the existing vistas. The designated scenic corridors include:
01. To the north and south of US Highway 160 between its junction with Sand Creek Arroyo west of Walsenburg and the summit of North La Veta Pass.
02. {omitted, does not apply}
03. The area east of Highway 12 bewteen the highway's first crossing of the Cucharas River south of La Veta and the summit of Cucharas Pass.
04. {omitted, does not apply}
05. {omitted, does not apply}
06. {omitted, does not apply}
07. {omitted, does not apply}
08. {omitted, does not apply}
09. All other portions of the designated Highway of Legends Scenic and Historic Byway not otherwise listed above."
Alternative Solutions
1. ALLTEL - PANEL AROUND WATER TOWERS: The town of La Veta is currently considering a proposal from Alltel/Verizon for a cell phone panel on one of the water tanks. This panel will not extend above the height of the tank and La Veta would collect rent estimated to be between $10,000.00 – $20,000.00 annually. This issue was on the agenda for the town meeting 7:00 PM.. August 5. The board agreed to move forward and the town attorney is contacting Alltel.
2. COMMNET WIRELESS:
Mike Moore, owner of River's Edge B&B, allowed Commnet Wireless (http://www.commnetwireless.com/ Castle Rock, CO 80109 Office: (720) 733 8049) to install a small 6 foot test antenna on top of his building in Cuchara. It handles the immediate area that it can be seen from, for example, down to the Yellow Pines Ranch. It is only 6 feet tall. Small towers are sometimes also installed successfully on other existing structures/highpoints, such as football field lights, or even telephone poles.
As of 9/2, the town of La Veta is currently considering a proposal from Commnet Wireless for 6 flush mount antennas on the sides of the 2nd town water tank. This would provide service for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile customers, as well as hundreds of international carriers. The antennas would be painted to match the tanks. A visual simulation was presented. There would be 2 antennas pointing towards Cuchara, 2 towards La Veta Pass and 2 towards HWY 12 and 160 intersection. Commnet stated that these will provide coverage for all and will be the best solution. Their goal would be to adjust/remedy Cuchara as needed to make Hwy 12 coverage between La Veta and Cuchara 'seamless'. The motion to enter contract negotiations via the town attorney (like the Alltel contract) was made because it could represent $18,000 in revenue to the town. It was passed unanimously.
With so many company's available and competiting to provide service, the town can outline it's desired requirements in advance: e.g. coverage throughout the town and over what area, no destruction of view shed, revenue for the town, option for coverage up to Cuchara. That way it would be known in advance what the benefits and impact would be. Individuals and/or towns make money for installing cell phone towers and have the final say on whether the company will be allowed to. The town of La Veta can have great cell phone service on its terms.
The people of the area apparently increasingly need a commitment from the town to take these steps to engage with a company for a wireless solution on their terms, either with Commnet or with another. In the meantime, we require our commissioners and representatives to say "No" to the wrong solutions and not let them go through.
I know a citizen in high place (living in La Veta and having a view clear to Hwy 160) who is willing to allow the same installation to occur on the roof of their own home! Perhaps this is all we need. In our mountainous/ridgy area, even a 180' tall tower located at the town lakes will not provide line-of-site to Cuchara. It is not higher than the dike walls and mountains. Smaller towers in more strategically selected locations could. This town does not need to be in the position of making high-risk "yes" or "no" reactive decisions; there are communications companies knocking at the door for a chance to serve and pay us for doing it.
3. On top of one of the EXISTING poles along HWY 160 that are North of La Veta and clearly overlooking the town.
4. Tower on Sheep Mtn.
5. Possible small tower near the fire repeater on the mesa
6. Possible small tower near the police repeater on La Veta Pass
7. Any number of open places north of 160, which are higher... Maybe the old truckstop, but a low tower.
Letter from the Town Board of La Veta to the County
September 1, 2008
Huerfano County Commissioners
Huerfano County Courthouse
401 Main Street, Suite 201
Walsenburg, Colorado 81066
To: Commissioners Cain, Bobian, and King:
On August 19, the La Veta Board of Trustees unanimously voted to oppose construction of a 180’ monopole cell tower, as proposed by Sub-Carrier Communications, to Huerfano County, in General Land Development Application Form file number 08-31. This includes an “Application for Conditional Use Permit.” This objection deserves serious consideration by the Commissioners due to the proposed tower’s proximity to town and town property, its impact on views to and from the town, and the acknowledgement within the Huerfano County Land Development Guide that land management and use decisions are a shared responsibility among the county and municipal governments.(2.10.11).
On August 11, 2008, the Town Board held a public meeting on the proposed cell tower where the opponents outnumbered the supporters 10 to 1. The people in attendance were extremely concerned over the prospect of losing their pristine view, felt imposed upon by a private developer, and did not feel the “benefit” of potentially improved cell service outweighed the cost of living with the blight of the tower. Several made the point of encouraging the Town Board to continue to work on a lease agreement with the company who has a proposal before the Town to install flat panel antennas on the town water tank. Since that meeting the town, has received an additional proposal for a second installation on the second water tank. The two projects represent all major cell service providers, and the representatives for those companies state these installations will cover La Veta and a significant portion of the valley.
The La Veta Town Board objects to the tower because of the adverse impact it will have on the views throughout the Cuchara Valley, and it’s violation of the Huerfano County Land Development Guide(HCLDG). The HCLDG was officially adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in July of 1999 and states that it’s implementation would “contribute to the continuation of the lifestyles, natural beauty and opportunities that make Huerfano County a unique place to live, work, and recreate. We ask you to give careful consideration to the language of the guide, especially the Criteria for Action on a Conditional Use Application, and again stress the overwhelming negative impact this tower would have on La Veta. Denial of this tower will not condemn the residents of the Valley to lack of coverage. There is currently widespread coverage available and numerous current technologies that could offer coverage in the current “dead zones.” The proposed 180’ tower is not an adequate addition to the current level of service, but wholly detrimental to that which is a very large part of what residents of this valley cherish, our gorgeous, unencumbered views.
Below are citations from the HCLDG which are most relevant to this issue.
Section 1.05, Purpose, reads “The purpose of this Guide is to provide an integrated, comprehensive plan and land use code...” and continues with a list that includes:
6. fostering the emergence of balanced, orderly patterns of growth
9. preserving areas of historical, visual, and archeological significance
13. otherwise giving due consideration to and promoting the provisions contained in Section II (the Comprehensive Plan) of this guide.
Section 2.08, County Goals and Objectives reads “The goals and objectives of Huerfano County listed below have been adopted to provide a general framework for the use and application of this Guide and for the making of the recommendations and decisions described within the various sections of the Guide. The goals and objectives of Huerfano County shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:...
2. Resource Conservation and Development: Preserve the scenic vistas, unique natural areas and other visually important sites within Huerfano County.
Section 2.11.05 Modernized Telecommunications Infrastructure reads: Above ground telecommunications facilities, particularly towers, antennas and related commercial communications fixtures shall be grouped or clustered and wherever feasible located east of Interstate Highway I-25 and north of Highway 10. Under no circumstances shall such facilities be located within a SCO, Scenic Conservation Overlay District, or location that obstructs or infringes on ridge line views or other local scenic features.
Section 2..12.09 Policies, reads: ...the following goal, objectives and policies apply specifically to the Cucharas-La Veta planning subarea corridor:
1. Goals and Objectives
01. To preserve and protect the visual appearance of the entire Corridor and especially the Colorado Highway 12 portion of the Highway of Legends Scenic and Historic Byway.
2. Policies
05. It is a policy of the County to protect from visual obstruction, and esthetic(sic) intrusion, the scenic values of the Corridor. Consequently, development in the planning area shall be sited, constructed and finished in a manner that will cause the minimum possible disruption of the area’s scenic value with special emphasis on protecting the areas adjacent to the designated Highway of Legends Scenic and Historic Byway.
08. It is a policy of the County to plan and otherwise work cooperatively with organizations, associations and government units in the Corridor for the implementation of this sub-plan
Section 2.12.10, Generalized Development Plan reads: This generalized development plan for the territory within the Cucharas-La Veta Corridor is intended to provide a conceptual framework for the future growth of the area. the features of this plan include:
7. Prevention of scattered development along the bottom lands of the Cucharas River or on visually obtrusive ridge-line sites
Future development was addressed in the HCLDG in section 2.12.11-Future Planning Needs in the Cuchara-La Veta Sub-area Corridor, which describes an intergovernmental “free standing development” plan which would address:
4. Acceptable measures for the protection of the visual appearance and critical wildlife habitat of various portions of the Corridor.
5. Infrastructure expansion and upgrades and service delivery needs required to safely and effectively support publicly acceptable levels of development throughout the Corridor.
Economic Development Issues, Opportunities and Problems were addressed in Section 2.13.03 and noted that: “ Huerfano County does not lack development opportunities resulting from it geography, geology, and other characteristics. These opportunities and advantages include:
5. Underutilized areas of great scenic beauty with the potential for an expanded local tourist industry based on passive and active recreational pursuits in these areas.”
The goals and objectives were laid out in Section 2.13.04 and read: The economic development and capital improvement goals and objectives of Huerfano County shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
01. To convert undeveloped land to residential, commercial, recreational and industrial uses in an orderly, rational manner, consistent with the other goals and objectives contained within this Comprehensive Plan and especially those contained within Section 2.10.
02. To aid in the development of the County’s natural resource base for the benefit of present and future residents, except when such development would conflict with other provisions of this Guide.
2. Policies
01. It is a policy of Huerfano County to promote development of the County’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, except where such development, even with appropriate mitigating measures, would conflict with other provisions of this Guide.
The HCLDG contains section 3.06.03, Criteria for Action on a Conditional Use Application, which states the Commissioners will approve or disapprove applications based in general upon the provisions of the Guide and specifically on the following:
1. The proposed conditional use conform to the requirements and provisions of this zoning regulation.
2. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of Huerfano County, as contained in Section ll of the Guide and specifically with reference to the provisions contained in Sections 2.08, 2.09,2.10, ...subsections 2.12.09, 2.12.10, ...
3. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with, and in harmony, with neighboring land uses and future land uses in the area.
6. That the proposed conditional use not unnecessarily scar the land on which such use would be located and that the proposed use provide all measures necessary to mitigate negative impacts upon....scenic views...
Sincerely yours,
2. COMMNET WIRELESS:
Mike Moore, owner of River's Edge B&B, allowed Commnet Wireless (http://www.commnetwireless.com/ Castle Rock, CO 80109 Office: (720) 733 8049) to install a small 6 foot test antenna on top of his building in Cuchara. It handles the immediate area that it can be seen from, for example, down to the Yellow Pines Ranch. It is only 6 feet tall. Small towers are sometimes also installed successfully on other existing structures/highpoints, such as football field lights, or even telephone poles.
As of 9/2, the town of La Veta is currently considering a proposal from Commnet Wireless for 6 flush mount antennas on the sides of the 2nd town water tank. This would provide service for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile customers, as well as hundreds of international carriers. The antennas would be painted to match the tanks. A visual simulation was presented. There would be 2 antennas pointing towards Cuchara, 2 towards La Veta Pass and 2 towards HWY 12 and 160 intersection. Commnet stated that these will provide coverage for all and will be the best solution. Their goal would be to adjust/remedy Cuchara as needed to make Hwy 12 coverage between La Veta and Cuchara 'seamless'. The motion to enter contract negotiations via the town attorney (like the Alltel contract) was made because it could represent $18,000 in revenue to the town. It was passed unanimously.
With so many company's available and competiting to provide service, the town can outline it's desired requirements in advance: e.g. coverage throughout the town and over what area, no destruction of view shed, revenue for the town, option for coverage up to Cuchara. That way it would be known in advance what the benefits and impact would be. Individuals and/or towns make money for installing cell phone towers and have the final say on whether the company will be allowed to. The town of La Veta can have great cell phone service on its terms.
The people of the area apparently increasingly need a commitment from the town to take these steps to engage with a company for a wireless solution on their terms, either with Commnet or with another. In the meantime, we require our commissioners and representatives to say "No" to the wrong solutions and not let them go through.
I know a citizen in high place (living in La Veta and having a view clear to Hwy 160) who is willing to allow the same installation to occur on the roof of their own home! Perhaps this is all we need. In our mountainous/ridgy area, even a 180' tall tower located at the town lakes will not provide line-of-site to Cuchara. It is not higher than the dike walls and mountains. Smaller towers in more strategically selected locations could. This town does not need to be in the position of making high-risk "yes" or "no" reactive decisions; there are communications companies knocking at the door for a chance to serve and pay us for doing it.
3. On top of one of the EXISTING poles along HWY 160 that are North of La Veta and clearly overlooking the town.
4. Tower on Sheep Mtn.
5. Possible small tower near the fire repeater on the mesa
6. Possible small tower near the police repeater on La Veta Pass
7. Any number of open places north of 160, which are higher... Maybe the old truckstop, but a low tower.
Letter from the Town Board of La Veta to the County
September 1, 2008
Huerfano County Commissioners
Huerfano County Courthouse
401 Main Street, Suite 201
Walsenburg, Colorado 81066
To: Commissioners Cain, Bobian, and King:
On August 19, the La Veta Board of Trustees unanimously voted to oppose construction of a 180’ monopole cell tower, as proposed by Sub-Carrier Communications, to Huerfano County, in General Land Development Application Form file number 08-31. This includes an “Application for Conditional Use Permit.” This objection deserves serious consideration by the Commissioners due to the proposed tower’s proximity to town and town property, its impact on views to and from the town, and the acknowledgement within the Huerfano County Land Development Guide that land management and use decisions are a shared responsibility among the county and municipal governments.(2.10.11).
On August 11, 2008, the Town Board held a public meeting on the proposed cell tower where the opponents outnumbered the supporters 10 to 1. The people in attendance were extremely concerned over the prospect of losing their pristine view, felt imposed upon by a private developer, and did not feel the “benefit” of potentially improved cell service outweighed the cost of living with the blight of the tower. Several made the point of encouraging the Town Board to continue to work on a lease agreement with the company who has a proposal before the Town to install flat panel antennas on the town water tank. Since that meeting the town, has received an additional proposal for a second installation on the second water tank. The two projects represent all major cell service providers, and the representatives for those companies state these installations will cover La Veta and a significant portion of the valley.
The La Veta Town Board objects to the tower because of the adverse impact it will have on the views throughout the Cuchara Valley, and it’s violation of the Huerfano County Land Development Guide(HCLDG). The HCLDG was officially adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in July of 1999 and states that it’s implementation would “contribute to the continuation of the lifestyles, natural beauty and opportunities that make Huerfano County a unique place to live, work, and recreate. We ask you to give careful consideration to the language of the guide, especially the Criteria for Action on a Conditional Use Application, and again stress the overwhelming negative impact this tower would have on La Veta. Denial of this tower will not condemn the residents of the Valley to lack of coverage. There is currently widespread coverage available and numerous current technologies that could offer coverage in the current “dead zones.” The proposed 180’ tower is not an adequate addition to the current level of service, but wholly detrimental to that which is a very large part of what residents of this valley cherish, our gorgeous, unencumbered views.
Below are citations from the HCLDG which are most relevant to this issue.
Section 1.05, Purpose, reads “The purpose of this Guide is to provide an integrated, comprehensive plan and land use code...” and continues with a list that includes:
6. fostering the emergence of balanced, orderly patterns of growth
9. preserving areas of historical, visual, and archeological significance
13. otherwise giving due consideration to and promoting the provisions contained in Section II (the Comprehensive Plan) of this guide.
Section 2.08, County Goals and Objectives reads “The goals and objectives of Huerfano County listed below have been adopted to provide a general framework for the use and application of this Guide and for the making of the recommendations and decisions described within the various sections of the Guide. The goals and objectives of Huerfano County shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:...
2. Resource Conservation and Development: Preserve the scenic vistas, unique natural areas and other visually important sites within Huerfano County.
Section 2.11.05 Modernized Telecommunications Infrastructure reads: Above ground telecommunications facilities, particularly towers, antennas and related commercial communications fixtures shall be grouped or clustered and wherever feasible located east of Interstate Highway I-25 and north of Highway 10. Under no circumstances shall such facilities be located within a SCO, Scenic Conservation Overlay District, or location that obstructs or infringes on ridge line views or other local scenic features.
Section 2..12.09 Policies, reads: ...the following goal, objectives and policies apply specifically to the Cucharas-La Veta planning subarea corridor:
1. Goals and Objectives
01. To preserve and protect the visual appearance of the entire Corridor and especially the Colorado Highway 12 portion of the Highway of Legends Scenic and Historic Byway.
2. Policies
05. It is a policy of the County to protect from visual obstruction, and esthetic(sic) intrusion, the scenic values of the Corridor. Consequently, development in the planning area shall be sited, constructed and finished in a manner that will cause the minimum possible disruption of the area’s scenic value with special emphasis on protecting the areas adjacent to the designated Highway of Legends Scenic and Historic Byway.
08. It is a policy of the County to plan and otherwise work cooperatively with organizations, associations and government units in the Corridor for the implementation of this sub-plan
Section 2.12.10, Generalized Development Plan reads: This generalized development plan for the territory within the Cucharas-La Veta Corridor is intended to provide a conceptual framework for the future growth of the area. the features of this plan include:
7. Prevention of scattered development along the bottom lands of the Cucharas River or on visually obtrusive ridge-line sites
Future development was addressed in the HCLDG in section 2.12.11-Future Planning Needs in the Cuchara-La Veta Sub-area Corridor, which describes an intergovernmental “free standing development” plan which would address:
4. Acceptable measures for the protection of the visual appearance and critical wildlife habitat of various portions of the Corridor.
5. Infrastructure expansion and upgrades and service delivery needs required to safely and effectively support publicly acceptable levels of development throughout the Corridor.
Economic Development Issues, Opportunities and Problems were addressed in Section 2.13.03 and noted that: “ Huerfano County does not lack development opportunities resulting from it geography, geology, and other characteristics. These opportunities and advantages include:
5. Underutilized areas of great scenic beauty with the potential for an expanded local tourist industry based on passive and active recreational pursuits in these areas.”
The goals and objectives were laid out in Section 2.13.04 and read: The economic development and capital improvement goals and objectives of Huerfano County shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
01. To convert undeveloped land to residential, commercial, recreational and industrial uses in an orderly, rational manner, consistent with the other goals and objectives contained within this Comprehensive Plan and especially those contained within Section 2.10.
02. To aid in the development of the County’s natural resource base for the benefit of present and future residents, except when such development would conflict with other provisions of this Guide.
2. Policies
01. It is a policy of Huerfano County to promote development of the County’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, except where such development, even with appropriate mitigating measures, would conflict with other provisions of this Guide.
The HCLDG contains section 3.06.03, Criteria for Action on a Conditional Use Application, which states the Commissioners will approve or disapprove applications based in general upon the provisions of the Guide and specifically on the following:
1. The proposed conditional use conform to the requirements and provisions of this zoning regulation.
2. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of Huerfano County, as contained in Section ll of the Guide and specifically with reference to the provisions contained in Sections 2.08, 2.09,2.10, ...subsections 2.12.09, 2.12.10, ...
3. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with, and in harmony, with neighboring land uses and future land uses in the area.
6. That the proposed conditional use not unnecessarily scar the land on which such use would be located and that the proposed use provide all measures necessary to mitigate negative impacts upon....scenic views...
Sincerely yours,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
