Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission declines to act on proposed 150‑ft T‑Mobile tower; forwards to county commissioners with no recommendation
Summary
After presentations and public comment on health, aesthetics and coverage, the Spalding County Planning Commission failed to reach a decision on a proposed 150‑foot monopole by Harmony Towers/T‑Mobile; a motion to deny failed for lack of a second and the item will go to the Board of Commissioners with no recommendation.
The Spalding County Planning Commission on Nov. 25 heard a contested application (No. 2516) from Harmony Towers LLC and a T‑Mobile representative seeking a special exception to place a 150‑foot monopole near North McDonough Road close to the Henry County line.
Chip Flowers, representing Harmony Towers and T‑Mobile, presented propagation maps and said the proposed tower would fill a coverage gap for in‑building service in nearby neighborhoods. "T‑Mobile is looking to build a 150 foot monopole in this area to address in‑building and in‑vehicle coverage in an area that’s lacking for them," Flowers said during his presentation.
A nearby resident who identified herself as living in Grayson Park spoke in opposition, citing health concerns, potential impacts on property values and the tower’s visual appearance. "I don’t agree with it being put there … it is an eyesore," the resident told the commission, and asked whether underground fiber or other alternatives could solve the issue.
The applicant and staff replied that fiber optics do not replace the cellular coverage the tower would provide and that there is no definitive evidence tying cell towers to health effects. Staff recommended denial, listing cons that outweighed pros: incomplete outreach to nearby tower owners, electromagnetic‑field interactions with nearby high‑voltage lines that could disrupt service, and a county telecommunications ordinance goal to minimize the total number of towers.
A commissioner moved to deny the special exception but the motion received no second and therefore failed. The parliamentary advisor said the commission could forward the application to the Board of Commissioners with no recommendation; the item was closed with no formal action at the planning‑commission level and will appear before the Board of Commissioners for final decision.
Commissioners discussed alternatives, including collocation, tree‑monopole "stealthing" and the timing of other nearby towers (one on Gaynor Road was noted as in construction drawing stages). Staff and the applicant said a nearby collocated tower roughly 1.7 miles away would not provide the in‑building coverage required in the area and that different carrier frequencies and topography can make coverage uneven.
