Board denies plan for 195-foot cell tower near Livingston Elementary

The Newton County Board of Commissioners denied a conditional-use permit request for a 195-foot monopole telecommunications tower proposed for a site on Highway 81 after a public hearing in which neighbors and an HOA urged the board to reject the project because of its proximity to Livingston Elementary School and nearby residences.

Planning staff presented the petition (NTL26-000001) and recommended approval if proposed conditions were met, noting setbacks, landscaping, a certified engineer’s fall-zone letter and a conceptual site plan that included a 6-foot fence and tree screening. "Should this petition be approved by the board of commissioners, it should be approved for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications tower subject to the owner's agreement to the following conditions," staff said, listing required compliance with Section 5.10-6.30 and other development standards.

Applicant representative Andy Rotenstreich said the monopole design and a 199-foot profile were selected deliberately to avoid FAA lighting and that exhaustive site searches showed no alternative tower within 2.2 miles that could meet T‑Mobile’s coverage goals. "The whole reason that we're here is to get better cell phone coverage into this area of the county," Rotenstreich told the board, adding the pole would be built to accommodate multiple carriers and county emergency equipment.

Opponents said developers did not adequately consult neighbors or the nearby school. Waka Hughes, speaking for the Lincoln Estates HOA, said the tower was "not compatible with the surrounding land uses" and reiterated concerns about the elementary school and daycare across the street. Several other residents raised health and radiation worries, possible effects on property values, and what they described as inadequate notice of the application. "There is a school and a daycare directly across the street," Hughes said.

Commissioner Mason moved to deny the petition, citing location concerns and planning commission guidance; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor of denial. The applicant cited an appraiser’s report included in the packet and an engineer’s fall-zone letter as evidence the site met ordinance standards; the board opted to deny the conditional-use permit following public opposition and deliberation.

Next steps: The denial blocks construction at the proposed site. The applicant may revise the proposal, pursue alternative sites from its exhaustion report, or seek further appeals consistent with county procedures.