Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 445‑ft communications tower proposal after widespread opposition; asks for more studies
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals continued a proposal by Iron Mountain Towers for a 445‑ft point‑to‑point communications tower at 344 West 1000 North after hours of resident remonstrance about visual impact, wildlife and health concerns; the applicant will supply additional studies and photo simulations for the June hearing.
The LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals voted on May 19 to continue a petition by Iron Mountain Towers that would allow a 445‑foot communications tower at 344 West 1000 North.
Applicant Derek McGru said the structure is a point‑to‑point communications facility (not a cellular base station) intended to propagate signals toward Chicago and a site east of South Bend. McGru told the board the petition meets setback requirements, that the Federal Aviation Administration issued a "no hazard" determination and that the company provided a fall‑zone engineering letter showing the tower would stay on the property in a worst‑case failure scenario. "We are asking for such great height ... the signal we're sending in order to make it over Lake Michigan has to be this height," McGru said.
The proposal drew heavy turnout from neighborhood residents, who raised a range of objections: Beth Biano and other neighbors said the tower would mar a scenic rural corridor and harm property values; several speakers noted nearby wetlands, bird and pollinator habitat and concerns about possible effects on livestock and human health from high‑frequency transmissions. Richard Slater and other remonstrators asked about construction‑traffic impacts, guywire footprints and long‑term site fencing and equipment installations. Several speakers emphasized the area's agricultural and scenic character and asked the board to reject the height variance.
County counsel reminded the board that special‑exception standards in the joint zoning ordinance require the petition to meet multiple criteria, including public safety and compatibility with surrounding properties. In response, McGru said the company had evaluated alternative sites and that few properties met the technical criteria and landlord willingness required for a facility of this type. He offered to provide photo simulations and environmental and wildlife studies to the building commissioner's office and asked the board to continue the item to allow that material to be shared with the public.
The board voted to continue the petition to the June meeting and instructed the applicant to work with the building commissioner's office to make supplemental materials available to remonstrators ahead of the next hearing. The continuance gives neighbors time to review additional studies and for the applicant to supply photo simulations, environmental evaluations and a clearer explanation of alternatives considered.
