Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over AT&T tower bids after missed public‑notice signs; council split on next step
Summary
Two AT&T cell‑tower proposals drew sustained public opposition and questions about compliance with local notice and setback rules. Planning commissioners denied both applications; council members debated whether to deny or send the files to full council for a final hearing and to build a clearer administrative record.
Several dozen residents urged parish leaders on March 26 to block two proposed AT&T telecommunications towers, saying the company failed to follow local notice and setback rules and that tower placement would endanger nearby homes and property values.
At a joint council/public‑works meeting, residents from Jefferson Terrace and surrounding neighborhoods told the council they never saw the 4‑by‑8 public‑notice sign that parish zoning rules require. “If they can’t even put a sign up to let the public know that this is coming, then who’s to say they’re gonna follow all the other rules?” resident Christine Jones told the council during the public‑comment period.
Other neighbors said the structures in question include a mother‑in‑law suite and homes within the tower fall‑zone radius, and several speakers raised safety and property‑value concerns. Frank Barber, who said he lives next door to the proposed tower at 1902 A Jefferson Terrace, read an appraiser’s opinion asserting that atypical structures such as towers adversely affect nearby residential values.
Planning staff and the Iberia Parish Regional Planning Commission had recommended denial on both applications, citing incomplete public notification, public opposition and proximity concerns. Parish counsel advised the council that denials based on public opposition alone can be vulnerable in court and recommended documenting specific, substantial evidence for denial or, alternatively, giving AT&T an opportunity to correct the notice omission before a final hearing.
Council members were divided. Councilwoman Natalie Broussard said she had not seen evidence of AT&T’s gap‑in‑coverage claims and urged denial. Councilman Scott Rossoner said he would side with constituents who came to the meeting: “I’m voting for the people.” Others said they wanted the full administrative record — including planning commission transcripts and audio — available before issuing a final determination.
Legal staff proposed a middle path: require the 4‑by‑8 sign be posted with the date of the final hearing, assemble an indexed record of prior planning and zoning proceedings, and then take a final vote before the full council. Some members argued that requiring the sign now would not remedy earlier noncompliance. After debate, the committee voted to send the matter forward for a full‑council hearing with additional record‑building and with explicit instructions about notice.
The council did not grant the conditional‑use permits at the committee level; the record shows the planning commission denied the applications previously, and the council moved the matter toward a final council hearing rather than issuing immediate approvals.
What happens next: the items will return to the council with the complete planning‑commission record and with a posting of the parish notice on the property so residents can be informed before the final action.
