Commission continues AT&T cell-tower permit after nearby airstrip users raise safety and ownership concerns

The Buckeye Planning & Zoning Commission on Nov. 25 continued a decision on an AT&T conditional use permit for a multi‑carrier telecommunications facility after public testimony and commissioner questions highlighted aviation-safety and property-ownership concerns.

Planner Trish Cooley said the application (PLZUDash25Dash0003) seeks a conditional use permit for a multi‑carrier facility that would include “a 90 foot faux elm tower” within a roughly 2,500‑square‑foot lease area south and west of the southwest corner of Rooks Road and West US Highway 85. Cooley told the commission the applicant had submitted a Federal Aviation Administration determination finding no hazard to air navigation and staff recommended approval subject to conditions a–g.

But commissioners and several nearby aviation stakeholders pressed whether the FAA review covered the private airstrip immediately south of the site and whether pilot safety—particularly low‑altitude crop‑duster operations—could be affected. Bill Kony of SmartLink, the applicant’s on‑site representative, said the FAA issued the no‑hazard finding and that, to his knowledge, “they are aware of it,” although airport representatives did not attend the applicant’s community meeting.

Two nearby aviation interests testified during the public hearing. Burrell Shears, president of Western Pilot Service and a leaseholder at the adjacent airstrip, argued the tower conflicts with what he described as a recommended 7:1 glide slope and said the structure “should have been 700 feet away at minimum,” urging postponement or rejection. Harold (Hal) Hayden, who said he owns the runway and majority of the airport, raised similar safety concerns and urged the commission to move the site farther north.

Assistant City Attorney Toss Henry told the commission he was “not aware of any legal authority for the city to override an FAA determination” and cautioned that generalized or hypothetical safety objections are not, by themselves, lawful grounds to deny a conditional‑use permit. Staff said they would investigate questions raised about a recorded lease and a potential parcel transfer tied to subdivision activity and could provide additional technical information about what the FAA reviews.

After discussion, a majority of commissioners voted to continue the item to the Jan. 27, 2026 Planning & Zoning meeting and directed staff to return with documentation on the FAA determination and any relevant property/lease records. No final permit decision was made at the Nov. 25 hearing.