Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge denial of proposed 199-foot cell tower at 94 Swedish Lane; applicant cites FAA clearance and federal law
Summary
Residents at a public hearing objected to a SmartLink/ICON Tower application for a 199-foot cell tower at 94 Swedish Lane, citing health, liability and property-value concerns. The applicant said the FAA issued a no-hazard finding and cited the Telecommunications Act of 1996; no decision was made tonight.
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County held a public hearing Aug. 27 on a SmartLink application on behalf of ICON Tower for a 199-foot self-support communications tower at 94 Swedish Lane. Anthony Amin, representing ICON Tower, said carriers will not place equipment on unnecessary towers, that the FAA issued a "no hazard" letter (so lighting is not required), and that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits denial of towers based on environmental or health concerns.
The applicant presented photo simulations and a written packet, and told the commission the tower is proposed to address coverage gaps. "Towers are not built for no reason," Amin said, adding that carriers will not spend money on unneeded infrastructure.
Nearby residents voiced strong opposition. "Living that close to constant radiation is troubling," said Eli Smith, who said he lives adjacent to the site at 250 McKenna. Tyson O'Donnell, a resident who said he has a 6-year-old daughter, asked whether the company would be insured for long-term health effects and claimed he had seen documents asserting tumor increases near towers: "I have documentation that people that live next to towers, tumor rates go up 75 percent." John Kelly and Donna Kelly said the tower would be an eyesore and would reduce property values; Donna Kelly also said she has adequate service and questioned the necessity of a new tower. Property owner Marty Bocquist said he owns the parcel at 94 Swedish Drive and urged approval, saying he sometimes has as little as one bar of service and would lack reliable 911 without improved coverage.
Planning staff told the commission the planning board previously heard the project and recommended denial by a 4–3 vote; staff also said the application had been delayed from June while waiting for additional materials including FAA verification. The applicant told commissioners the FAA determination, telecom law, and photo simulations are in the packet.
The commission did not vote on the permit at the meeting; the chair closed the public hearing and said no decision would be made that evening and that the matter will be publicly noticed when brought forward for formal consideration.
