Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents raise health and interference concerns at Elbert County meeting over proposed 110-foot cell tower
Summary
At a neighborhood meeting about a proposed 110-foot telecommunications tower at Silverbuckle Ranch in Elbert County, residents asked about siting, FAA review, RF/EMF studies and potential interference; the presenter said two public hearings will follow and an RF/EME study will be provided when the carrier is identified.
A presenter at a neighborhood meeting in Elbert County described a plan to place a roughly 110‑foot telecommunications structure on a ridge at Silverbuckle Ranch and answered residents’ questions about coverage, siting and health effects.
The presenter said the structure is intended to serve three nearby search areas shown on the project map and estimated typical carrier coverage would be about "2 to 5 miles." Asked when the site would become operational, the presenter said the project must clear two public hearings (the county planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners) and the building‑permit process, which they estimated could take another four to six months; equipment installation and carrier activation would follow.
Residents asked multiple technical and safety questions. One attendee asked about the tower’s height; the presenter said, "I think it's 110 feet," adding that the decorative windmill element would not generate power. On interference, the presenter said propagation and RF/EME studies can be provided to the public and explained that major carriers operate on licensed, separate spectrum and "theoretically" should not interfere with each other.
During the meeting, Brenda said she was concerned about "health concerns and the EMFs and things like that" and asked what would be required to stop the project. The presenter replied that the industry follows FAA and FCC guidelines, that the Telecommunications Act limits local jurisdictions from considering health and safety as the main siting factor (as he stated, "in the Telecom Act, there's a portion of it that says local jurisdictions cannot consider health and safety as a determining factor"), and that an EME report showing power levels would be prepared and submitted to staff to become public record.
Attendees also pressed why this parcel was chosen rather than nearby fields. The presenter said the company must find a willing landowner, meet setback and zoning requirements and seek a location with sufficient elevation; he said multiple properties had been considered and a lease agreement is typical. The presenter said the developer has been working on other sites across the metro area and in more rural settings but that this is the only site planned within the immediate five‑mile radius.
Staff asked attendees to sign a contact sheet and noted that public‑hearing notices will go to a larger radius (about a half‑mile) than the neighborhood meeting. The presenter said 74 or 75 mailings had been sent for the neighborhood meeting and that he would try to have the EME/RF report available by the hearing date.
The presenter offered to provide the propagation and RF/EME reports to Elbert County staff and to attendees once the carrier signs on, and closed by giving contact information and the project label he plans to use internally.
Next steps: the project will proceed to the county planning commission and then the Board of County Commissioners for public hearings; the EME/RF study will be added to the public record and the applicant will notify the mailing list.
