A

A site plan for two cell towers was recently approved in the October Planning Commission meeting after some back and forth discussion between the applicant and the commission.

Michael Saniford, a representative of the applicant Vogue Towers, LLC spoke briefly regarding the application.

“I’m here to answer any questions regarding the project,” he said.

William Holder, a nearby resident of Lamont Lane, brought forward to the board several concerns he had regarding the towers. His main concern was his health.

“I’ve had six bypasses, eight stents and a pacemaker,” he said. “I’m very scared about the cell towers.”

He expressed his main concern that in the memo provided in the agenda by Director of Planning and Codes Charles Rush was a statement regarding “relief from the Planning Commission.”

The memo stated “The applicant will need relief from the Planning Commission for the following requirements: Separation distances between towers shall be applicable for and measured between the proposed tower and preexisting towers. The separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line between the base of the existing tower and the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the proposed tower. The separation distances (listed in linear feet) shall be as shown in Table 2. The applicant is requesting relief from this Separation requirement. As depicted in the attached design drawings, the proposed 150’ tower is 289’5” to the nearest residence, within the 300% (450’) as noted in Table 1 above. However, the tower is only 150’ in height, well below the 289’5” of the distance between the tower and the residence. In addition, the applicant has also provided an engineered fall zone letter outlining that the design of the tower will be such that it will collapse within 75’ (50%) in the event of catastrophic failure. (Staff Recommends approving this request).”

It was the 289 foot distance from his residence that concerned Holder. He asked why this applicant was allowed to bend the normal requirement that the tower be at least 450 feet from the nearest residence, especially with his health concerns.

Chairman Paul Schwer said “we’ll address those questions with the applicant” in response to Holder’s comments. He then directed Rush to give the staff report.

Rush gave a brief summary including information from the memo, and said “Staff recommends to approve.”

Afterwards, Commissioner Marvin Sellers requested that Saniford explain why the applicant asked for an exception to be made on the distance requirement. Saniford said the property owner leasing the land requested the cell towers be built where they are.

He also said he researched the effect of cell towers on pacemakers, and found “an article published on the National Library of Medicine’s environmental research for public health” that discussed the effects of 5G on people with pacemakers.

“Among the 384 tests, they observed 43 of what they call ‘EMT events,’” said Saniford. He summarized that if someone with a pacemaker can maintain a distance of 15cm from a 5G device, they can guarantee safety.

The commission asked several preliminary questions regarding lighting on the towers and the types of carriers using the towers.

Saniford said the tower did not need lights and added that the tower is currently being developed from Verizon wireless, but would be open to others. He also said the towers are not currently C-band frequency supporting.

Sellers again brought up possibly moving the towers further away from Holder’s property.

Saniford said the property owner wanted the towers where they are, and if the towers could not be approved with the applied location, it might break the lease deal.

“I like the idea of having the tower, but I don’t know why we’d variance our regulations out of convenience,” said Sellers. “Convenience to one is not convenience to all.”

“The regulation is intended to be for collapse safety,” said Schwer. “Not necessarily power dissipated from the tower.”

Rush assented to Schwer’s statement. Schwer continued, saying “I don’t see any distinguishing reason to” not approve of the variance.

Sellers reiterated convenience to one not being convenience to all, and Commissioner Alexander Rice responded, saying “but I think if we’re looking at the intent [of the variance], it’s for the reason of collapse. I think they’ve addressed that, about how the tower would collapse, and that not being a liability for the resident.”

The motion for approval passed four to three, with Sellers, Commissioner Bobbie Wilson and Commissioner Bill Comer voting ‘nay.’