Taylor council denies special-use permit for 300-foot cell tower near residence on Kratos Lane

2097725 · January 9, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

The council voted to deny a special-use permit that would have allowed a 300-foot self-supporting cell tower at 118 Kratos Lane; staff had recommended denial because the proposed tower would be 113 feet from the nearest house while code requires 1,200 feet.

The Taylor City Council on Jan. 9 denied a special-use permit for a proposed 300-foot cell tower at 118 Kratos Lane, after staff said the proposal did not meet the city’s distance requirements from residential structures.

City staff told the council the code requires a separation equal to four times the tower height (1,200 feet for a 300-foot tower) and that the nearest house to the proposed tower was 113 feet away. Staff recommended denial on that basis; the planning commission had recommended approval after reviewing an engineer’s fall-collapse letter.

Brian Sullivan, representing American Tower, said the proposal was a replacement for an existing 300-foot guyed tower across the street that the applicant expects to remove. Sullivan said the proposed self-supporting tower would fit within a 60-by-65-foot secured compound and replicate coverage for Verizon and T‑Mobile, arguing that without a nearby replacement those carriers would have “significant gaps in their coverage.” He showed coverage maps and said the existing tower’s lease expired and negotiations to stay at the old site had failed.

Staff emphasized the safety-engineering letter addressing fall zone design but said the proposal still did not meet the distance requirement in the ordinance. One council member said the council has “a responsibility to these citizens” living 113 feet away and cited property-value and proximity concerns.

Councilman Garcia moved to deny Ordinance 2025-02 as presented; the motion was seconded and carried with all members present voting in favor to deny the ordinance.

City staff noted neighbor notification had been performed and no written objections were received; one resident spoke at the meeting. The planning commission recommended approval contingent on the engineer’s letter, but the council applied the code’s distance standard in voting to deny the special-use permit.