Planning commission recommends denial of proposed 155‑ft cell tower after staff finds application noncompliant with tower‑search affidavit

The Planning Commission on Jan. 28 recommended denial of a special exception for a proposed 155‑foot monopole telecommunications tower on a 4.92‑acre property on Gaynor Road. The applicant — representing Verizon Wireless — presented engineering maps showing coverage gaps the tower would fill. Neighbors and at least one adjacent property owner opposed the site, citing proximity to homes, potential effects on property values, bird migration and health concerns.

Staff told the commission the application failed to meet a specific requirement in the county’s tower appendix (Appendix I): the applicant’s affidavit must document efforts to contact owners of existing towers within a 2.5‑mile radius and explain why those existing towers could not accommodate the applicant’s needs. The applicant’s engineering search radius had been limited by Verizon to 0.6 mile, and the affidavit did not include the required documented outreach to tower owners at the larger 2.5‑mile radius. Planning staff therefore recommended denial on procedural grounds. Legal counsel and staff noted federal law limits local adjudication of RF health effects, but the county ordinance requires a documented good‑faith search for collocation opportunities and explanation of engineering constraints.

Verizon’s representative described the proposed tower as a 155‑foot steel monopole with a 10‑foot lightning rod, a 100‑by‑100‑foot compound, a 12‑foot gravel access road and landscaping; Verizon said the tower would be designed to allow co‑location for up to four carriers and would have minimal routine traffic. Engineering models supplied by the applicant showed improved coverage in areas the company identified as gaps. The applicant said multiple property owners were contacted in the 0.6‑mile area and that many lots in the broader search area were wooded and not available.

Commissioners unanimously recommended denial, noting the application did not comply with the county’s prescribed affidavit and outreach requirements. The applicant requested and the commission agreed that the company could obtain the missing documentation and resubmit; commissioners suggested the application could be deferred and updated to address the two‑and‑a‑half‑mile outreach requirement prior to a Board of Commissioners hearing. The denial recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners; staff indicated the applicant may provide the supplemental affidavit and a reapplication before the BOCC meeting.

Neighbors who spoke said the tower would be within a few hundred feet of some homes and expressed concerns about bird collisions and property values; the applicant cited professional appraiser studies and FCC guidance that find no consistent, direct link between towers and general property‑value declines. Commissioners emphasized the procedural compliance requirement rather than medical or environmental adjudication.