Weatherford council denies AT&T conditional‑use permit for proposed communications tower

Weatherford City Council on Tuesday denied a conditional‑use permit request from AT&T to install a communications tower on a roughly 14.903‑acre tract at 3103 Sonora Canyon Road.

The vote followed a public hearing that drew more than a dozen residents from the nearby Red Eagle Ranch, Blue Quail Drive and Pittman Road neighborhoods. Residents cited proximity to back yards, potential property‑value loss, fire and lightning risks, and concerns about radiation exposure. Councilmember Luke Williams moved to deny the permit; Mayor Pro Tem Heidi Wilder seconded the motion and the council voted to deny the request.

The application, identified in council materials as CUP‑24‑0010 and associated with Ordinance O02/2025‑03, had been recommended for approval 6–1 by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 8, provided the tower’s fall zone remained inside the applicant’s property boundary. City planner Caleb Kettner presented the staff report and summarized the commission’s recommendation and the written comments entered into the record before the hearing.

AT&T’s representatives told the council the company had examined alternatives and preferred to colocate where feasible, but that no viable collocation sites existed within the search radius. “I mean, at the end of the day, these towers are really there to benefit everybody,” project representative Doug Henderson said, adding that the coverage maps show “hotspots” where residents would otherwise experience poor service. Applicant representative Chris Prescott said the applicant had adjusted the site plan to place the fall zone on the parent tract per the planning commission condition.

Opponents, many of whom live adjacent to or within a few hundred feet of the proposed site, said the tower had moved closer to residences since the planning commission hearing and would harm property values and safety. “I am firmly requesting that you oppose this agenda item and deny this permit,” said resident John Cordery of 803 Blue Quail Drive. Resident Ken Dean, who said he shares the western border fence line with the proposed location, submitted appraisal reports and argued the tower would cause “external obsolescence” and fire risk in the dry brush near their properties.

Property owner Gary Withager, who controls the parcel where the tower would sit, told council the proposed compound would be gravel‑covered and fenced, and said the tower would be sited so that a collapse would fall within his property. “We followed along the easement…minimum of a 35 from all property boundaries so that the property if there is a fall…would fall 100% on my property,” Withager said.

Council discussion referenced public safety and the planning commission record. Councilmember Williams said, based on testimony and evidence presented, the proposed tower location was “incompatible with the existing surrounding residential uses” and moved to deny. The motion to deny carried; the council closed the public hearing and moved on to the next agenda item.

The denial leaves open options for the applicant to revise the proposal and return to the council or to pursue other siting options; the meeting record does not show further direction to staff or a request for a staff report on alternatives.

Votes at the session were taken via council touch screens; the transcript records only that Item 7a was denied (no roll‑call tally was read aloud during the meeting minutes presented at the hearing).