Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose proposed monopole; commissioners continue cell‑tower land‑use request to allow more review
Summary
An applicant sought a future‑land‑use change and conditional use to allow a camouflaged monopole communications tower on a ~23.5‑acre parcel; neighbors raised traffic, wetlands mitigation and health concerns. The board agreed to continue the item to Jan. 24 for further discussion and possible conditional‑use approaches.
Paul Pleasant, the property owner and applicant, asked the Clay County Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 22 to approve a small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment and zoning changes that would allow a monopole communications tower on a roughly 23.5‑acre parcel north of Live Oak Lane. Pleasant said wireless service in the area is spotty and that a tower might improve coverage for residents and users of adjacent Jennings State Forest.
The planning commission voted 5–2 to recommend approval; staff said the proposed use is allowed as a conditional use if the future land‑use and zoning are made consistent. Planning staff noted the Brannonfield master‑plan area contains different setback rules: outside Brannonfield a 200‑foot setback applies to cell towers, while Brannonfield rules allow a 50‑foot setback for existing village contexts and include camouflage and alternative siting language.
Neighbors from Fox Meadow and nearby subdivisions gave extensive public comment. Several residents said the parcel sits like a mitten within their community and raised traffic, safety and wetlands mitigation concerns if the property's land‑use category changed, which could affect future development potential. Patricia Archambault opposed siting a tower near homes and raised health concerns related to EMF exposure, urging the board to seek alternatives farther from residences.
Bill Gary, a Fox Meadow resident, said the primary need is safety and coverage for people recreating in the forest and on county roads. Tina Massey and others said they were not categorically opposed to a tower but worried that changing the future land‑use designation could allow higher density residential development if the site were later sold.
Commissioners discussed options including keeping the property in its current designation and allowing a tower via conditional use, thereby avoiding a comp plan change that could alter density allowances. The applicant said he was willing to continue the item to discuss alternatives. The board continued the matter to the Jan. 24 meeting to allow staff, the applicant and neighbors to work on potential conditions and a narrower path forward.
Quote: "Cell towers near our homes mean constant exposure day and night. You cannot turn a cell tower off," said Patricia Archambault during public comment. Applicant Paul Pleasant said the proposal would improve spotty service and help during emergencies: "when they have storms and things and power goes out, people rely on their cell phones... it's pretty spotty out there."
