Glynn County defers Georgia Power communications tower permit after neighbor concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After extended public comment about drainage and disputed property ownership, the board unanimously deferred Georgia Power’s special use permit (SUP-25-1) for a proposed communications tower at 1135 Highway 32 to April 2 to give the company time to work with residents and resolve outstanding issues.
The Glynn County Board of Commissioners unanimously deferred a decision on Georgia Power’s special use permit application for a proposed communications tower at the Thalmann substation (SUP-25-1), giving the applicant roughly 45 days to work with neighbors on outstanding drainage and property-ownership concerns.
Christopher Carey, the county’s senior planner, told the board the proposed lattice tower would stand about 275–279 feet with equipment at several levels and would require a special use permit because it exceeds the 150-foot threshold. Carey described the site location, proximity to residences and transmission lines, and noted the planning commission recommended approval.
Multiple residents — including Sherry Clark and Glenda Howe — told commissioners they have experienced long-standing drainage problems, contend Georgia Power placed marking flags and equipment on or near private property, and worry about property-value impacts and herbicide spraying near timberland. Clark said the community has “very low, terrible soil” and urged Georgia Power to be “a good neighbor.”
Jonathan Yates, agent and counsel for Georgia Power, acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns, described the tower as part of an essential grid communications network connecting existing towers, and committed to resolving the property-title questions and monitoring/maintenance issues. Yates said the company would work to clarify whether a disputed 0.91-acre strip is owned by the company or by a neighbor and committed to response procedures for drainage concerns.
Commissioners pressed Yates on response times and prior responsiveness; one commissioner said the company’s track record did not inspire confidence. Rather than deny the application, Commissioner Duncan moved to defer to allow the applicant and staff to resolve property-ownership and drainage issues and to consider possible relocation; the motion, seconded and discussed, passed unanimously, with the item scheduled for the board’s April 2 meeting.