Neighbors sue city over wireless tower

Published 7:00 pm Wednesday, November 22, 2006

VINLAND — When the Poulsbo City Council voted to allow Verizon Wireless to install a 120-foot monopole facility near Vinland Elementary Oct. 18, neighbors gave the decision a poor reception.

The city can hear them now.

After the decision, attorney David Horton, who represented the residents in their fight to halt the project, said he would wait and review the council’s decision before challenging it in the Kitsap Superior Court.

Less than a month later, Vinland residents filed suit to uphold the city Hearing Examiner’s July 24 ruling, which stated that Verizon should consult with Puget Sound Energy about co-locating the cell tower on a series of power poles recently erected in the area.

The suit, filed on behalf of 20 residents, names Verizon Wireless, property owner Philip Swenson and the city as respondents and asks that the court prevent construction on the proposed facility and the council’s decision be reversed.

“The city council picked facts in the record that supported its conclusions, but ignored substantial evidence in the record that supports the decision of the Hearing Examiner,” the suit states. “The city council ignored the overwhelming weight of evidence that was cited by the Hearing Examiner.”

The suit contends that the Hearing Examiner was correct in his original conclusions about the impacts of the project on neighboring property owners.

In the Hearing Examiner’s original decision, Hearing Examiner Theodore Hunter concluded that, “Although the proposed facility may not be significantly detrimental to the city as a whole, it would be significantly detrimental to the general welfare of persons living in the neighborhood (of Finn Hill Road and Rhododendron Lane).”

Hunter supported that conclusion with a letter from the Kitsap County Department of Community Development, which stated the project “may create more than a moderate visual impact unless demonstrated otherwise during environmental review.”

Hunter also took issue with the city’s consultant’s review of the project, which stated the site “does not appear to lend itself to using utility poles” without providing a supportive analysis of that finding.

However, when the council made its decision, the majority disagreed with Hunter and said the project would not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood.

In that decision, written by City Attorney Jim Haney, the council stated that “by using the term ‘significantly detrimental,’ PMC 18.76.060 requires more than a determination that the monopole would be visible from nearby properties; it requires that the visual and aesthetic impacts of the monopole be both detrimental, i.e., adverse and significant, i.e., more than moderate.”

The council also disagreed with Hunter’s assessment of the city’s consultant’s review of the project.

“The Hearing Examiner erred in making this finding,” the council’s decision states. “Adcomm’s conclusion that the site does not appear to lend itself to using the utility poles was based on three facts.”

Those facts include that adding 30-feet to the 90-foot utility poles would not have less of an impact than a single 120-foot pole, the relocation would move the facility closer to the road and the use of the poles would reduce the opportunity for co-location with another wireless provider.

No hearing date for the suit has been set.