Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves 100‑foot Verizon tower SUP, citing coverage and first-responder benefits
Summary
Council unanimously approved a specific-use permit for a 100-foot Verizon monopole with design and colocation conditions; Verizon told council the tower would support Verizon Frontline service for first responders in the area.
The Fate City Council on Dec. 2 unanimously approved ordinance O-2024-068, granting a specific-use permit for a Verizon telecommunications monopole proposed at 100 feet (96-foot monopole plus a 4-foot lightning rod) on a privately leased agricultural lot near North Ben Payne Road.
Planning staff summarized the application (SUP24-001), noting that the Fate Unified Development Ordinance requires a specific-use permit for telecommunications towers in agricultural zoning and that the city’s design standards and SUP supplemental criteria apply. Staff described recommended conditions: planting an evergreen hedge with masonry columns in lieu of chain-link fencing with barbed wire, prohibiting nonrequired lighting unless mandated by FCC or FAA, requiring a notarized certification that the tower is available for co-location by other service providers, and installing a minimum 30-foot concrete driveway apron to limit gravel tracking onto the road.
Ryan Wells (Planning Director) said the tower would improve low-service coverage in the surrounding rural and suburban areas and meet spacing requirements in the UDO; he noted municipalities must reasonably accommodate telecommunications infrastructure consistent with federal law. The staff presentation included a coverage map and cited the facility’s potential to serve emergency responders.
Applicant representative Michael Karanja (MD7, on behalf of Verizon Wireless) highlighted Verizon Frontline — a network service for first responders — and described the site’s coverage benefits, including improved connectivity for a fire department facility about 1.8 miles from the proposed location.
Council members asked about co-location provisions, future land-use impacts and whether an SUP would limit later carriers. Staff explained the SUP’s co-location requirement and that the SUP ordinarily attaches to the use rather than to a named carrier; they also noted that a tower, once built, can remain if land uses around it change.
After a brief public hearing with no speakers, a motion to pass ordinance O-2024-068 with the SUP conditions passed unanimously (6–0). Staff will require the listed conditions before issuing permits and will seek a notarized certification of availability for other providers as part of the SUP requirements.
