Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears split reaction to proposed Swedish Drive cell tower; legal counsel says health-based denials require expert proof
Summary
A developer seeking a cell tower permit for Swedish Drive presented RF analyses and maps; residents cited health risks and nearby coverage, while the county attorney said federal law limits denials based solely on health concerns absent a preexisting ordinance. The permit was placed on next week’s agenda for a vote.
A representative for ICON Tower presented technical materials and said a new tower on Swedish Drive is intended to fill a coverage and capacity gap in the East Valley, showing maps of nearby towers and radio-frequency (RF) analysis. Anthony, representing Mean and Associates on behalf of ICON Tower, said the closest Verizon tower is about 3.5 miles away and that the proposed structure would ‘‘offload’’ traffic when neighboring towers reach capacity.
The county attorney told commissioners that ‘‘if the commission does decide to reject the permit, they have to have substantial evidence, presented mainly by expert witnesses with regards to health concerns and property values. It simply can’t just be presented by individuals that do have those concerns,’’ and that federal law prevents denial on health grounds unless an ordinance predated the application.
Commissioners pressed the applicant for specifics about coverage, the proximity of other towers and whether carriers could place equipment on existing towers. The applicant said co-location and tower siting involve trade-offs between coverage and capacity and that moving a carrier three miles could create coverage gaps to the north or northeast.
During public comment several residents urged rejection. John Kelly said carriers previously suggested Galen Road tower space could be used and urged commissioners to ‘‘stand with the people of the East Valley and reject this proposal.’’ John Stewart said the proposed tower would cast a ‘‘shadow on four homes’’ and expressed health concerns tied to his recent cancer diagnosis: ‘‘I’m very concerned about my neighbors,’’ he said. Greg Bill Ramirez and Gerald Adam questioned whether an additional tower is needed, citing general online statements about tower ranges.
The commission placed the permit on next week’s agenda for a formal decision, leaving the matter open to additional submissions of evidence or expert testimony. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript.
The hearing included extended exchanges about technical need versus neighborhood impact and a clear reiteration by the county attorney that health-related objections will require expert evidence to meet the legal standard for denial. The next procedural step is the commission’s vote when the item returns to the agenda.
