Hearing examiner takes testimony on proposed 160-foot Turf Valley cell tower; decision pending

Howard County Hearing Examiner heard evidence Aug. 13 on a conditional-use application by TowerCo, with Verizon as an anchor tenant, to build a 160-foot communication tower at 2700 Turf Valley Golf Road in Ellicott City.

The applicant asked the examiner to allow a minor amendment to the filed plan to change the proposed galvanized monopole to a disguised “monopine” (tree pole) of the same height. Attorney Sean Hughes for TowerCo told the examiner the change would “further enhance the site” and said the company and its consultants had provided photo simulations and engineering drawings for the monopine. The examiner said the amendment would be incorporated into the record and considered in the forthcoming decision.

Why it matters: supporters said the new tower would fill persistent gaps in wireless coverage across the Turf Valley resort and surrounding neighborhood, improve 5G capacity and strengthen the ability to make emergency 911 calls. Opponents raised concerns about property values and compensation to nearby homeowners; no formal vote was taken at the hearing and the examiner said a written decision will be issued later.

What was proposed and what witnesses said TowerCo’s application seeks permission for a 160-foot structure sited on property owned by Turf Valley Golf Resort. Company witnesses described the project as an unmanned, fenced compound 50 by 50 feet that would accommodate multiple carriers. The applicant said the compound and pole would be built to host multiple platforms (the filing referenced up to four carriers; engineering testimony identified five equipment areas inside the compound).

Engineer Camille Shabshab of Entrex Communications Services, who said he holds structural engineering degrees and has worked on wireless sites for about 30 years, reviewed the zoning drawings and photo simulations. He testified the plan shows setbacks well beyond the code minimums: “we exceed all the required setbacks by a factor of 12 to 15,” and presented site drawings and aerial views entered as exhibits. Shabshab described the photo-simulation process and identified vantage points used for renderings that show how a 160-foot monopine would appear from nearby roads and residences.

Joshua Chicola of Mastech Network Solutions, the site-acquisition representative working for Verizon, testified that the location was selected after surveying existing structures 50 feet or taller within about a mile and finding none suitable to meet Verizon’s coverage objectives. He said the proposed site is “centrally located to the center of the ring” of the coverage area the carrier wants to improve.

County staff position and code issues Planning staff’s report — admitted into the record and referenced repeatedly during testimony — concluded the application met the relevant provisions for conditional use in the PGCC-2 zoning district, including height exemptions for communication towers and equipment height limits for accessory structures. The staff report also noted there is no requirement for parking for a cell site and that the closest environmentally sensitive area (a flood plain) and the nearest listed historic resource (Waverly Mansion, HO-021) are at distances the report said would prevent adverse impacts.

On radio-frequency safety, the applicant entered an RF compliance report as an exhibit and witnesses said the proposed facility would comply with FCC regulations and be “well below” applicable limits.

Public testimony Several Turf Valley residents and property managers testified in favor of the tower, describing repeated dropped calls and weak coverage in the neighborhood. Resident Marilyn Weeks said she is “totally and fully supportive of the request for the cell phone tower” and described instances where she had to leave her property to get service. Don Pressler, a Fairway South resident, said, “I’m in favor of the tower. … Our connectivity is terrible.” Sari McLeod, a property manager who said she has handled resident complaints for years, called poor cellular service “a regional issue” and said placement on Turf Valley property could help many residents.

Supporters also included health-care and resort representatives. Louis Grama, CEO of Lorien Health Services, testified that reliable cellular connectivity is critical for staff and emergency response and said, “reliable service, cell service is now an essential utility akin to reliable utilities such as water and electricity.” Nicole Motsay, who identified herself as a resort employee and a parent, described recent missed calls and said the lack of reliable service had been “a very scary experience.”

Opponents and concerns At least one nearby resident raised concerns about potential loss of property value and noted that Turf Valley (the landowner) would receive compensation for the site while individual homeowners would not. The resident also said members of the community had met with the applicant earlier and remain concerned about location and impacts. No party presented a formal expert report showing property-value impacts during the hearing.

Procedural and technical details from the record - Address: 2700 Turf Valley Golf Road, Turf Valley Golf Resort, Ellicott City (PGCC-2 zoning). - Proposed structure: up to 160 feet to the top of the monopine; steel/antenna centerline placements identified (Verizon near the tower top). The monopine option would be painted/brown shaft with green foliage as camouflage per the submitted simulations. - Compound: 50 ft by 50 ft fenced enclosure with an 8-foot security fence; room for multiple carriers and utility demarcation points. - Setbacks: internal property-line setbacks to adjacent Turf Valley-owned lots range from about 126 to 782 feet; off-site residential distances to nearest lots exceed 1,000 feet in some directions; the code minimum setback (one-third of pole height) equals 53.4 feet. - Exhibits: applicant entered 17 documents (numbered 1–17), including RF compliance (exhibit 4), radio-propagation maps (exhibit 3), photo simulations (exhibit 6, pages 49–59), engineering drawings (exhibit 8, pg. 61+), aerials (exhibit 16, pgs. 103–104) and site maps. - Lighting: witnesses stated no FAA lighting is required for the proposed height and location; any required federal lighting would be complied with.

Hearing status and next steps The hearing concluded Aug. 13. The examiner closed evidence, said the matter would be decided in a written order and that the monopine amendment would be incorporated in the decision record. The examiner did not announce a final determination at the hearing.

Notes on what the record does not resolve The hearing record includes community concerns about property values and compensation but does not contain an appraisal or empirical study quantifying property-value impacts. The record also contains differing phrasing on how many carriers the compound “is being built for” (the filing referenced room for up to four platforms; engineering drawings showed five carrier locations). Those points remain factual items in the record rather than resolved findings in the hearing.

(Exhibits, technical reports and the examiner’s forthcoming written decision will govern the project’s outcome.)