Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident reads affidavit opposing proposed Mulberry cell tower into record

5534094 · August 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident, Caitlin Greeno, read a sworn affidavit into the commissioners’ public record objecting to a proposed cell tower at 615 Wyandotte Road in Mulberry and citing constitutional and legal authorities.

During the public-comment portion of the Aug. 5 meeting, resident Caitlin Greeno read an affidavit into the record opposing a proposed cell tower at 615 Wyandotte Road in Mulberry. Greeno identified the zoning appeals applications by number and said she had submitted 12 affidavits to the county office. “This is in reference to area board of zoning appeals application number CC20250013, docket number 0525SE, and area board of zoning appeals application number CC20250134 docket number 625VA relating to a proposed cell tower located at 615 Wyandotte Road, Mulberry, Indiana,” Greeno said during her reading. Greeno asserted constitutional limitations on government authority and cited multiple sources in her affidavit, including the Indiana Constitution, the Missouri Constitution (cited in relation to privileges and immunities), the U.S. Constitution, Black’s Law Dictionary (first edition), Webster’s 1828 dictionary, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison. She demanded that government show evidence of authority to identify authorized uses of property and asked the county to “cease and desist all activity related to the proposed commerce of a cell tower at 615 Wyandotte Road, Mulberry, Indiana.” Greeno also set out remedies and deadlines in the affidavit, including a request that any disagreement be rebutted by sworn affidavit within five days and monetary amounts the affidavit described as penalties for continued action; the board made no response during the meeting beyond receiving the public comment. The comments were delivered during the meeting’s public-comment period; commissioners did not take action on the zoning appeals during the session.