Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears public hearing on telecom tower amendment; bill to convert stealth tower to monopole is tabled
Summary
A public hearing was held on a requested amendment to a 2007 special use permit to convert a stealth telecommunications tower at 3732 McKelvey Road to a monopole with exterior equipment. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions; council tabled the bill for further consideration.
The City of Bridgeton held a public hearing on an application to amend a special use permit that originally authorized a 100‑foot stealth telecommunications tower at 3732 McKelvey Road. Planning and zoning staff said the request would convert the existing disguised tower to a monopole carrying visible exterior equipment; council tabled the ordinance after the hearing.
Planning and zoning officer Zach Greitens summarized the application and staff exhibits, including the planning commission report and site plans. Greitens said the planning commission held a public hearing on March 10 and recommended approval by an 11–0 vote with conditions. The primary conditions recommended were that a building permit be required (including design and review board recommendation) and that a fence surrounding the lease area be maintained in good condition.
The site is in the B‑2 Community Business District and the tower lease area is a 30‑by‑50‑foot area in the rear corner of the property. Greitens explained that the original 2007 approval (ordinance 07‑03) allowed a 100‑foot stealth tower — a disguised structure that was built without a flag — and that the proposed change to visible exterior antennas requires an amendment to the special use permit.
Cindy Reeder, representing SBA Towers, told the council there would be no climbing apparatus on the tower and that equipment would typically be installed by crane or a rigging plan. “Usually, when equipment is within the canister, it doesn’t reach as far … that’s why they want to put exterior mounts with the antennas because they can get better coverage,” Reeder said.
Council members asked about fence condition, site access, and whether the change reflected updated equipment needs since the 2007 approval. Greitens said the fence condition was raised at the planning commission; the property owner committed to clean up damaged fencing. He also noted an existing access easement that allows maintenance vehicles to reach the leased area.
Council action: after the public hearing, councilmember Luther moved, and councilmember Luke seconded, to table bill 64‑89 (the zoning amendment). The motion to table carried. No final vote on the special use permit amendment was taken on April 2.
Next steps: the planning commission conditions (building permit with design review and fence maintenance) remain relevant to any subsequent council action; the bill will return for further consideration at a future meeting.
