Warren County hearing on proposed Nixon Camp cell tower continues after hours of technical testimony and public opposition

Warren County commissioners continued a contested site‑plan hearing on April 14, 2026, for a proposed Tag Towers/Verizon wireless tower at 1105 Nixon Camp Road after hours of testimony from the applicant, its RF engineer and multiple neighbors.

Rod Carter, attorney for Tag Towers and Verizon, told the board the applicant supplied a supplemental packet and that its technical team concluded an existing nearby ‘‘subcarrier’’ tower lacks usable structural documentation and has no tenant, making rehabilitation infeasible. ‘‘That tower isn’t a viable colocation option,’’ Carter said, and the applicant submitted updated RF maps and an engineer to explain coverage differences.

Fred Low of Chimney Tower Consultants and Kurt, Verizon’s RF engineer, described the applicant’s outreach and coverage analysis. Low said the team mailed notices and performed door knocks to properties within the search ring and then expanded the search when lease terms could not be reached; he identified exhibit sections that record the outreach. Kurt presented engineering maps showing existing coverage, the applicant’s proposed Camp Kern (1105 Nixon Camp Road) improvement, and an alternate ODOT site model. He said the proposed site would reduce the white (no‑coverage) areas and provide capacity offload in populated locations but acknowledged tradeoffs in valley coverage and that no single site resolves every gap.

Several nearby residents who spoke in opposition said they had contacted multiple tower owners and ODOT and dispute the applicant’s statements about the abandoned tower’s condition and inspection history. ‘‘That tower has been vacant since May of 2019,’’ said Robert Eric Bednar, presenting emails he said he obtained from the existing tower owner; Bednar also told the commissioners that his property line is about 250 feet from the proposed tower and his house about 450 feet away. He and other neighbors handed the board a petition signed by residents opposing the site and argued the proposal would depress property values.

The board’s legal counsel directed that petitions and affidavits without live testimony are inadmissible for purposes of the adjudicative record; commissioners said they will accept only live testimony that establishes the individual distance from the site and the ‘‘unique harm’’ to a claimant’s property so the record can be tested by cross‑examination. The neighbors were given an opportunity to return and testify in person on the continued date.

Commissioners also asked county counsel to clarify whether a federal ‘‘shot‑clock’’ for wireless applications — a 90‑ or 150‑day statutory timeline raised during the hearing — would operate to deem an application approved if the board did not render a decision within that period. The board asked staff and counsel to provide that legal guidance before the next meeting.

After extended questioning of applicant witnesses and neighbors, the commissioners voted to continue the public hearing to April 21 at 9:45 a.m. The continuation was approved by recorded vote (Mrs. Jones: yes; Mr. Grossman: yes; Mr. Young: yes). The hearing will resume for additional testimony and final deliberation.

The application remains pending. The board instructed the applicant to supply any outstanding documentation (including the supplemental RF packet already filed) and told opponents they must appear and testify live if they wish the board to consider claims about property distance or individualized harms.

What’s next: The hearing will resume April 21; commissioners said they expect that to be the last evidentiary hearing before the board takes a decision that may be subject to federal timelines and administrative appeal.