Board tables Verizon/Horvath request for 270-foot tower after residents raise safety, value and documentation concerns

Brook Lacers, representing Horvath Communications and Verizon Wireless, asked the Grant County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 1 for a special exception to build a 260-foot commercial wireless tower (270 feet including a lightning rod) near County Road South and 700 East to address rural coverage gaps and public-safety concerns. Lacers said Verizon’s radio-frequency (RF) engineers identified service gaps near Upland and I‑69 and that the proposed tower would offload capacity from nearby sites and improve 911 reliability.

The request drew heavy opposition from adjacent property owners, who raised multiple concerns about siting and documentation. Kari Olsen read a letter from her husband, Steven Olson, vice president of business and finance at Taylor University, warning that “If this tower is allowed to be constructed on this site, it will most assuredly have a detrimental effect on our property values,” and noting the application describes a 260‑foot tower with a 10‑foot lightning rod. Several neighbors urged denial or said they should be compensated if the board approves the site. Other residents cited noise, visual impact, and helicopter flight paths to a nearby hospital.

Petitioner representatives said the proposed macro site meets FCC exposure limits and that typical sources such as phones and Wi‑Fi present higher localized RF exposure than the tower’s emissions. In rebuttal Brook Lacers distributed studies and an RF coverage packet he said supported Verizon’s need. He also said the tower was located where fiber and power access make deployment feasible and that providers typically seek volunteer hosts for lease agreements.

Board members and a nearby licensed professional engineer, Larry Shipley, questioned several items in the applicant’s packet. Shipley and others noted an apparent error in the RF need statement that referenced a different town (“Winnac”) and flagged inconsistencies in the address information on engineering drawings. Members asked the applicant to demonstrate that collocation was infeasible, to clarify why a 260‑foot monopole was required rather than a shorter structure or different location, and to provide accurate, stamped technical documents.

After deliberation, board member Lois Jones moved to table the application to allow the applicant to correct inaccuracies and submit a complete packet in advance of a special meeting. The board recorded a roll-call vote: Michael Duke—yes; Andy Ellis—yes; Lois Jones—yes; Sandra Rowan—yes; Wilbur Web—yes. The motion passed and the board set a special meeting for early July to review corrected materials; staff instructed the applicant to submit the revised packet in time for staff distribution prior to the meeting. No substantive vote on the special exception was taken.

The board emphasized its role is to evaluate the submitted findings of fact and compliance with local ordinance, not to make coverage-need determinations reserved to the carrier. The petitioner agreed to correct the RF documents and drawings and to provide additional supporting evidence. The board also noted that under the executed lease language provided, the tower owner is contractually obligated to remove the facility within 45 days of lease termination, a point discussed when residents asked who would be responsible for removal in case of bankruptcy or abandonment.

Next steps: the applicant must return a corrected and complete packet addressing the RF-statement and drawing inconsistencies, collocation analysis, and technical clarifications. The board will review the revised material at the special July meeting; no new evidence beyond corrections is permitted if the matter is formally tabled.