Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny 195‑foot T‑Mobile monopole near Livingston Elementary after resident opposition
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with residents and the applicant, the board voted to deny a conditional use permit for a 195‑foot monopole cell tower (199 ft with lightning rod) proposed near Livingston Elementary School (tax parcel 16‑030). Planning staff outlined ordinance criteria and recommended approval subject to conditions, but commissioners sided with district residents and the planning commission’s earlier recommendation to deny.
The Newton County Board of Commissioners voted April 7 to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed wireless telecommunications monopole near Livingston Elementary School.
Planning staff had described a proposal for a monopole up to 195 feet tall (199 feet including a 4‑foot lightning rod) on a 3.36‑acre parcel (tax parcel 16‑030) with a 0.29‑acre lease area. The presentation summarized coverage maps submitted by T‑Mobile, photo simulations, a fall‑zone engineering letter, and an applicant-provided market/value-impact study. Staff said the proposal would need to comply with Newton County zoning ordinance section 510‑630 and recommended approval if the project met ordinance standards and the board’s conditions.
Andy Roenstrike, representing the applicant (Gulf South Towers/T‑Mobile), said the carrier had exhausted nearby sites and that the monopole design and the sub‑200‑foot height were chosen to reduce visual impacts and avoid FAA lighting requirements. Roenstrike and an appraiser (Bo Simpson) presented an exhaustion report, property‑value analysis and a certified engineer’s fall‑zone letter.
Multiple residents, led by Waka Hughes (Lincoln Estates Homeowners Association), opposed the application. Residents cited proximity to Livingston Elementary and a nearby child daycare, incompatibility with the residential zoning and the comprehensive plan, concerns about property values and visual and environmental impacts, and questions about whether local residents had been adequately notified. Several speakers said they had not experienced coverage problems requiring a new tower and raised unverified health concerns about radiation.
A commissioner representing District 2 spoke for the district, referenced the planning commission’s review, and moved to deny NL26‑0000001. The motion passed after a second; the record shows commissioners voting to deny the conditional use permit.
The staff packet and public record include the applicant’s site plan, photo simulations, coverage maps, a market/value‑impact study and an engineer fall‑zone letter. Planning staff noted potential conditions that would be required if the board had approved the permit, including compliance with section 510‑630, landscaping, subdivision of the tower site from the parcel, and approval from environmental health and GDOT as required.
The board’s denial means the applicant may revisit siting options or appeal procedures available under county processes; no appeal or follow-up date was recorded at the meeting.
