Ouray County Communications Tower versus Ouray Real Estate

RIDGWAY – In one of the most complex issues to come before the Ouray Board of County Commissioners in recent years, an application for a special use permit to erect an 80-foot communications tower and equipment shed on Log Hill Mesa has been approved. However, the approval comes with six conditions, which could ultimately bring the entire matter back before the commissioners at a future date.

The commissioners based their decision on the requirements of the land use code, rather than bowing to pressure to sidestep various review requirements in favor of expediency of providing emergency communications.

The permit’s conditions require that the visual impact restrictions of the Ouray County Land Use Code be considered, and that the Log Hill Village Unit I architectural control committee, or ACC, must also approve the application. Another condition includes a prohibition of lights on the tower.

Commissioner Don Batchelder added a condition requiring a bond for removal of towers at the site that are not being used; he also specified that any uses other than those approved would require additional special use permits. A sixth condition requires appropriate documentation between Verizon and Ouray County on any subleasing of the tower.

The tower is expected to provide multiple services that will enhance emergency communications among state and local agencies, as well as provide better cell phone coverage for the region. Approved uses include an emergency services antenna, the Verizon antennas, which could be up to 12 units total, and a microwave antenna for the Colorado Wireless Interoperability Network.

The requirement for ACC approval could result in an appeal of the permit, since the ACC previously denied the application. Log Hill Village resident and ACC member Jim Kennedy said that the original proposal for an emergency communications structure included a 10-foot antenna, but that the addition of the cell phone component changed the picture. “What Verizon came back with was a gargantuan cell phone tower and well beyond what any of us had envisioned,” Kennedy said. “We’ll support an emergency tower, but this failed the test. Were it not for the Verizon component, this might have worked out. The covenants give us no choice but to say ‘no.’”

The commissioners’ decision was preceded by an exhaustive two-day public hearing. Over 60 citizens registered their wide-ranging views about the suitability of the tower’s location on Aug. 25, and about 30 citizens appeared on Sept. 2, when the commissioners made their final decision.

“You certainly gave us some things to think about,” Commissioner Chair Keith Meinert told those in attendance at the Aug. 25 meeting.

While no one present questioned the need for enhanced emergency communications capability, numerous people questioned whether the proposed site is the best location for such a tower.

Emergency responders from Ouray and Montrose County agreed about the need for a tower, maintaining that the Log Hill Village site is the best one. “Until we have CWIN [Colorado Wireless Interoperability Network], these two radios can’t talk to each other,” said Ouray County Emergency Coordinator Alan Staehle, referring to state’s 800 MHz system and the county’s VHS communication network.

Testimony was conclusive that cell phone traffic from 911 calls is escalating in Ouray County and neighboring communities such as Telluride and Montrose, and that gaps exist in cell phone and pager coverage on Log Hill Mesa and in other corners of the county. Ouray County Director of Public Health Cheryl Roberts told the commissioners about her recent experience involving a rescue and stabilization procedure in which she was “out of communications” for one and a half hours.

Issues were raised about the legal ownership of the proposed tower site. “It’s not a legal property that you can grant building permits on; you’re looking at a precedent you may not want,” said Montrose attorney Bob Thomas, who submitted a 61-page document to the commissioners.

Ouray County Attorney Mary Deganhart informed the commissioners on Sept. 2 that the there is “a lot of ambiguity in the covenants,” but that the parcel in question was owned by the permit’s applicant, Dallas Creek Water Company. “I apologize that it’s kind of as clear as mud,” she added.

Issues of visual impact violations, originally raised at a previous planning commission public hearing, were joined by a question as to whether microwave emissions from the tower pose a health risk to the community. “This tower will subject the entire county to microwave radiation,” said Ruth Davis, who opposes the location of the proposed tower. She tied potential DNA damage, early onset of Alzheimer’s Disease and irregular heart beats to exposure to radiation. “It produces headaches and chronic fatigue; you’ll find people who wake up and are not being able to live in their house,” she said. Davis provided documentation for her position, including material from the International Firefighters Association about the health effects of microwave emissions to firefighters.

Mark Young, president of the Montrose County Sheriff’s Posse, countered that the health effects from microwave emissions are negligible. “You’ll get more microwave energy sitting in front of your microwave. One-half of one watt. It won’t nuke you if you stand there for 100 years.”

Reggie Kajer, a resident of Log Hill who lives nearby, asked the commissioners to explore all of the options before proceeding with an approval. “Stop, set the proposal aside and go into work session with those who have technical or legal knowledge,” Kajer said.

After the two-hour hearing on Sept. 2, Commissioner Heidi Albritton at first objected to the conditions, in part because the review of visual impact regulations and other code compliance issues would extend the process, postponing a solution to the more immediate health, safety and welfare issues that would be solved by the emergency communications aspect of the project. “Our hands are tied by the code. I know where everyone is coming from. But health, safety and welfare trumps look,” Albritton said.

However, Meinert and Batchelder maintained that the board could not sidestep reviews associated with the building permit process, however circuitous it may be.

Written by Christopher Pike and posted by Erin Eddy