By Michael Howell
The Hamilton School Board has submitted a request for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 65-foot-tall cell phone tower at Haynes Field next to the City’s River Park. It would be located on school property in the southeast corner of Haynes Field near the largest quonset building. The request is now pending in front of the City of Hamilton’s Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and a meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 13, at Hamilton City Hall to consider it.
Installation of an 80-foot tower was first considered last fall, but the current request under consideration would be a 65’ tower accompanied by a 25’ by 12’ operations and equipment building, all surrounded by a 6-foot-tall chain link fence.
Hamilton School District Superintendent Tom Korst told the ZBA members at an initial meeting held on March 23 that the district had received an offer of possibly up to $12,000 per year for leasing the property for the proposed purpose.
In a letter to the district, Hamilton Zoning Administrator Land Hansen stated some concerns about the request. He noted that the property was currently zoned “public and institutional” which does not include “commercial” uses. He also stated that design requirements were not being met and no alternative or conforming designs were being considered. He also expressed concern about the effects of the longterm lease on future uses of the area if the use of the football field should be discontinued.
Concerns were also expressed by a few Hamilton City Council members, including Ken Bell, Joe Petrusaitis and Jenny West, as well as residents in the neighborhood.
Former County Attorney George Corn, who lives in the neighborhood, expressed strong objections to the installation. Corn outlined a litany of laws and city codes that would, in his opinion, be violated by the approval of the project.
Corn argues that the request does not comply with either the intent or the specific requirements of the law. He said, “The stated purpose of the law is to protect the city’s natural resources and visual environment and limit the number of towers needed to serve the city to do so.” He noted that the installation would be visible from the city park, the public/institutional zone, the Bitterroot River, and block the view shed of the Bitterroot Mountains to the west from the adjacent residential zone.
Corn states that the installation would violate municipal code requirements concerning screening and landscaping. He rejected the suggestion that because of the school district’s buildings any consideration of this standard is unnecessary. He said that is akin to saying “if the school district can trash it, so can we,” and was disregarding that the standard is mandatory.
He notes that it was not demonstrated that other options were not available as the law requires and claims the cell tower, in particular, vitiates the protections and expectation of property owners who purchased residentially zoned property because it was adjacent to the city park.
“The location of this cell tower is inconsistent with the nature of this city park which is used by residents and visitors. This particular city park, located next to the Bitterroot River, is heavily used and much loved by its users. It provides both a park and nature preserve to its users as well as access to the Bitterroot River. A cell tower would blight the view shed of a large portion of the park. This defeats the zoning scheme in place for this area, and for that reason the request should be denied,” states Corn.
He also argues that, without a signed contract with the companies involved, the actual installation could end up being a very different configuration or even in a different spot.
“Instead, Skyline and Verizon have manipulated a naive school board in order to give the Zoning Board of Adjustment the bum’s rush which would have allowed them to manipulate the process after an initial approval,” states Corn.
Corn and City Councilor Ken Bell have instituted a petition campaign to gather signatures of people opposed to the project. They are asking voters and residents of the school district to sign on to a short statement asking the school district to immediately withdraw the request.
“A cell tower does not belong there or anywhere else close to our river park or cluttering our river or mountain views in that area. It is not necessary for service,” states the petition.