Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends amended AT&T tower proposals back to Planning & Zoning after public opposition
Summary
After extended public comment and debate about fall-radius setbacks, notice to adjoining landowners and federal preemption issues, the council voted to send amended site plans for two proposed telecommunications towers (Hazard Road and Jefferson Terrace) back to Planning & Zoning for further review rather than take final action.
Residents opposing two proposed telecommunications towers on Hazard Road and Jefferson Terrace pressed the council at the Feb.19 meeting, and the council ultimately referred amended site plans back to the Iberia Parish Regional Planning Commission for further review.
Laura Carlisle, representing the applicant, said the Hazard Road monopole was lowered from 159 feet to 156 feet to meet setback requirements for residences (tower height plus 30 feet). She said the applicant submitted engineering and market studies, argued no discernible negative effect on property values and said they had identified alternative parcels that could not be leased.
Several neighbors, including Frank Barber and Mitchell Broussard, said they learned of the proposal only by word of mouth and raised concerns about notice, aesthetics, the tower's proximity to homes and the potential for the structure to fail and obstruct a main thoroughfare. Amy Petrie said the neighborhood already receives adequate cell service, raised worry about health effects commonly alleged in online sources, and noted livestock and high‑visibility roadway concerns.
Councilmembers discussed planning commission denial of the taller designs, what changes the applicant had made since that denial, and legal limits on local regulation. Legal staff and others reminded the council that federal telecommunications law and FCC rules limit the use of radio‑frequency (RF) concerns as the sole basis to deny applications, though safety and fall‑radius/ setback compliance remain legitimate local considerations.
After discussion and several members’ requests for greater clarity on who received certified notices and whether the amended plans should be reviewed by Planning & Zoning, Councilwoman Natalie Broussard moved, and colleagues seconded, a motion to send the applicant’s amended site plans back to Planning & Zoning for review of the changes. The motion passed.
What happens next: The amended plans will return to the Regional Planning Commission for reconsideration; if Planning & Zoning issues a favorable recommendation and the ordinance is published, the item may come before the full council for final passage at a subsequent meeting.
