Commissioners postpone decision on proposed 286‑foot telecommunication tower near Carlton after significant public opposition

Madison County commissioners on Monday postponed action on a conditional-use application to allow a 286‑foot telecommunication tower west of Carlton after an extended public hearing and requests for additional information.

Attorney Eric Connolly (applicant) presented on behalf of the tower company (planned initial tenant T‑Mobile) and said the tower is intended to fill a documented coverage gap in southeast Madison County; he told the board the site meets county conditional‑use criteria and that the structure was engineered for colocation so one tower can serve multiple carriers.

Residents who live near the proposed site spoke in opposition, citing health and property‑value concerns, the tower’s height and the proximity to Carlton and Washington Gap/Washington Mills State Park. Several residents asked the board to decline the application, and some called attention to a tower‑notice posted on other sites and to the federal preemption of health‑risk rules on radiofrequency emissions.

After more than an hour of public testimony for both sides, and at the request of several commissioners and residents, the board voted to postpone the application to the March 31 meeting (the applicant asked for time to demonstrate whether a nearby existing tower could meet the carrier’s coverage needs and to provide other documentation). Staff and the planning commission had recommended approval; the board’s postponement was to give the applicant time to investigate an existing tower and to provide additional engineering evidence.

Why it matters: The application raised countywide questions about tower siting, federal preemption of RF‑health standards, community character near Carlton and whether carriers have exhausted co‑location opportunities on existing structures.

Key points from the hearing

Applicant presentation: Connolly said the proposed 286‑foot self‑support tower would be sited on an 11‑acre parcel with a 75‑by‑75‑foot lease area and a single access point. He said the carrier’s propagation maps show the site fills a coverage gap that existing sites do not serve for T‑Mobile and that the tower would be engineered to collapse within the fenced lease area in the unlikely event of a structural failure.

Opposition and concerns: Dozens of residents attended; speakers included parishioners, homeowners and at least one Carlton city council member. Opponents raised three recurring concerns: potential health impacts (several speakers said they are medical‑sensitive and worried about emissions), aesthetics and character (the tower would be visible from the town and nearby parkland), and process (some residents said the tower company and attorneys were not local and called for greater transparency). Several residents also said there are existing towers in the region and questioned whether a closer structure could accommodate the carrier.

Board action: After hearing both sides, the board voted to postpone consideration and asked the applicant to review a nearby tower again and submit conclusive evidence that co‑location at existing towers would not meet the carrier’s needs. The postponement gives staff and commissioners more time to review the technical information and for the public to receive additional documentation.

Ending

The application will return to the board at the March 31 convening (applicant asked for the delay and agreed to provide additional engineering and co‑location information). The public hearing record remains open until that meeting.