Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conroe council hears residents, applicant on proposed 160‑ft ‘monopine’ tower and requests more study; item dies for lack of motion
Summary
At a public hearing, AT&T’s representative said a 160‑foot camouflaged monopine at 848 Sergeant Ed Holcomb Blvd would address neighborhood coverage and 911 reliability; residents protested property‑value and health concerns. Council asked staff and the provider to explore alternatives; no approval motion passed.
Conroe — The City Council held a public hearing on Feb. 12 over a proposed 160‑foot camouflaged telecommunications tower (a monopine) at 848 Sergeant Ed Holcomb Boulevard and its requested variances from the city’s tower ordinance.
City counsel and staff explained that the proposal requires two exceptions: a height variance because the tower exceeds 100 feet and a waiver because more than 50% of lots within the ordinance’s 800‑foot test ring meet residential criteria. The applicant’s representative said the site—sited in vacant/industrial land near a water plant—is primarily commercial land and that the monopine is intended to infill coverage gaps that affect in‑building and emergency 911 calls.
Applicant testimony: "This is all about public safety," the tower representative said, arguing most 911 calls originate from mobile phones and improved coverage would help emergency response. The applicant also said the site has been vetted since 2020 and that they plan to market space to additional carriers; he stated the nearest residential lot is several hundred feet from the proposed tower and that existing monopines have not driven down property values in his prior appraisals.
Resident objections: Multiple nearby residents said a tall monopine would be visually intrusive and raised health and property‑value concerns, urging the council to look for other site options or co‑location on existing county or MCHD towers. One resident said earlier monopines in Conroe have deteriorated and required enforcement to restore camouflage.
Council response and outcome: Councilmembers expressed split views. Some said they would not vote to place a tower inside a neighborhood and preferred co‑location; others emphasized the need for better in‑building coverage and public‑safety benefits. Several councilmembers asked staff to pursue alternate locations and asked the applicant for evidence of co‑location attempts. The council closed the public hearing but did not approve the variances — a motion to act was not made and the item died for lack of motion. Members asked staff to organize a site visit to existing monopines and additional follow‑up information.
Representative quotes: "When you have Wi‑Fi and you don't have good coverage ... CAPCO dispatch can't see where you are on their screen," the applicant said, emphasizing emergency response. "I don't think that's fair," a resident said, describing the tower as a "big old sore thumb" visible from neighborhood yards.
Ending: The council requested further vetting and a site visit before reconsidering variances; the item received no final approval at the meeting.
