Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor objects to 60-foot ham radio tower in Genoa, cites notice and safety concerns
Summary
A Genoa property owner told the board a proposed 60-foot ham radio telescoping transmitting tower (project DP25-0096) adjacent to his property was approved with minimal notice and inadequate design review materials; he urged elected officials to consider community impacts.
Roger Adam, an adjacent property owner in Genoa, used the general public comment period to object to a 60-foot ham radio transmitting tower approved by county community development near 265 Old Barn Road (project number DP25-0096).
Adam said the Genoa Historic District Commission had rejected a 60-foot 5G tower two years earlier and said community development approved a 60-foot ham radio tower adjacent to his property's western border. He said he submitted opposition by email and telephone on the same day he received the community development notice and that the project applicant's southern neighbor refused to sign documents approving the project when prompted.
Adam raised safety concerns about the telescoping tower's structural integrity, saying its proximity to adjacent properties could cause collapse, property damage or fire. He said multiple Pioneer Trail subdivision property owners oppose the tower and contended that at least six Genoa Lakes residences were not notified by the county. Adam also criticized the project notice, saying it described "a retractable amateur radio antenna" without drawings or photos and that written comments were limited to ten days and sent by mail only to adjacent property owners.
Adam asked why the project was treated as a minor design review rather than a larger review process and urged elected commissioners to ensure taxpayers have options to vote on decisions they consider significant. The board did not take action on the matter during the meeting; the comment was heard during general public comment.
No county staff presented a reply on the record during the public comment period; the matter remains at the community development review stage as described by the commenter.
