otherwise been incompatible - reasonably compatible. I understand the other hearings official to <br />have found, and LUBA to have agreed, that because cell towers were conditionally permitted uses <br />in R-1 zones that neighbors could not object just because there would be a cell tower nearby. In <br />other words, cell towers are not per se incompatible. But just because a cell tower is not per se <br />incompatible does not mean it is per se reasonably compatible. The additional screening was what <br />the hearings official and LUBA relied upon to satisfy the reasonably compatible standard. <br />In the Rest Haven decision (SR 13-5, July 31, 2014), the applicant wanted to construct a <br />120-foot mono-pine on the 70-acre Rest Haven Cemetery. The mono-pine was proposed to be sited <br />in area of tall trees that would screen the mono-pine from surrounding properties. The portion of <br />the property where the mono-pine was proposed to be sited was zoned Public Land (PL). Cell <br />towers are allowed uses in a PL zone with site plan review. EC 9.5750(5)(b). The proposal <br />therefore had to comply with the site review approval criteria at EC 9.8440, including EC <br />9.8440(1) which provides: <br />The site review plan's general design and character is reasonably compatible <br />with surrounding properties, as it relates to building locations, bulk and height, <br />noise, glare and odors."6 <br />In Rest Haven, properties to the west rose up a slope looking down back towards and over <br />the cemetery. As the mono-pine in that case was 120-feet tall, the existing stand of similarly tall <br />trees was used to screen the views of the westerly neighbors so that their views to the west were <br />not dominated by the mono-pine. The Rest Haven decision stated: <br />Opponents] argue that the cell tower cannot be compatible with residences <br />because the cell tower would be 120-feet tall as opposed to 35-foot houses. As <br />discussed earlier, opponents mischaracterize the comparison required by EC <br />8.8440(1) as between cell towers and houses. As explained, the analysis of EC <br />9.8440(1) requires that the impact of the mono-pine located within an existing <br />stand of trees be `reasonably compatible' with the views of surrounding <br />properties to the west. [Opponents] argue that essentially any proposal that <br />results in a visible cell tower to the residential properties is not compatible. EC <br />9.8440(1) does not require that a site design be invisible to surrounding <br />properties. EC 9.8440(1) does not require that a site design have no impact on <br />compatibility. Cell towers are allowed in PL zones, and even in R-1 zones. As <br />6 The PUD "reasonably compatible" standard in EC 9.8320(13) was nearly identical to the site design "reasonably <br />compatible" standard of EC 9.8440(1), and they are both nearly identical to CUP "reasonably compatible" standard <br />of EC 9.8090(2). The parties agree there is no substantive difference between the provisions. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 11 <br />256