Planning commission recommends approval for AT&T 130‑foot tower with condition to keep fall zone on tower property

The Weatherford Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6‑1 on Jan. 8 to recommend approval of a conditional‑use permit (CUP 240010) for a 130‑foot AT&T communications tower on a 14.903‑acre tract at 3103 Sonora Canyon Road, with a condition that the tower be sited so its fall radius remains within the parcel where it will be built.

Staff told commissioners the request is conceptual and that detailed setbacks, heights and elevations will be reviewed in the formal site‑plan process. Staff noted FAA and FCC approvals and federal reviews (NEPA, SHPO/THPO) would be required before construction and recommended approval subject to one condition. Staff also entered two opposition letters into the public record—one from residents of the Red Eagle subdivision and one from the Parker County Airport.

Chris Prescott, representing Solaris Group on behalf of AT&T, said the tower would substantially improve cellular coverage and reduce dropped calls across the south area and toward the lake, and would carry FirstNet and Department of Defense overlays important for emergency response and geolocation. Prescott said the site is engineered to withstand strong winds, will be grounded for lightning protection and would not require FAA lighting because it falls below FAA thresholds. "It will benefit the community immediately," Prescott said, adding that federal permitting is a standard part of the process.

Residents who live adjacent to the proposed site urged denial or changes. Jennifer Gennaro, who said she lives at 805 Blue Quail Drive and is next to the proposed site, called the tower an "eyesore" and told the commission that studies show "approximately a 20% decrease in value" for properties near towers. Don Ventura, of 809 Blue Quail Drive, cited concerns about non‑ionizing RF radiation, collapse risks and a 135‑foot fall zone that he called "extremely inadequate." Kenneth Dean, a nearby property owner with telecommunications experience, said the fall‑zone circle shown by staff crosses his land and argued that relocating the tower a short distance could avoid encroaching on his property and preserve future development potential.

Marty Schranz and other residents asked whether the applicant had explored collocating on nearby towers or city property nearer the lake. Prescott replied that colocation and other nearer parcels were investigated but many were residential or not zonable; he offered to work with the property owner to slide the monopole slightly east to keep the fall zone from encroaching on Dean's parcel while preserving coverage.

City staff and legal counsel told the commission staff's review found the application met the zoning requirements under the city's code. Counsel also cautioned that generalized concerns about aesthetics and property values alone have been held insufficient in case law to justify denial in the 5th Circuit, saying those factors do not automatically prevent approval.

After public comment and applicant response, a commissioner moved to recommend approval with the additional condition that the tower be positioned so its fall zone remains within the property where the tower will be located and that applicable FAA and FCC approvals be submitted through the building‑permit process. The motion passed 6‑1. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory body; the recommendation will go to the Weatherford City Council for final action.

Next steps: the applicant will continue formal site‑plan review and must obtain federal permits. The council will consider the commission's recommendation at a future meeting.