Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies 197-foot Sandtown Road monopole after safety debate, 3–2
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission voted 3–2 to deny a special-use application for a 197-foot monopole proposed by Municipal Communications/AT&T, after county staff and the county consultant said the requested height and fall-zone would violate local ordinance requirements and could intrude on Interstate 85 right-of-way.
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission voted 3–2 to deny a special-use application to build a 197-foot monopole at 626 Sandtown Road proposed by Municipal Communications to serve AT&T.
Clay Brogdon, a telecommunications consultant representing the applicant, said the replacement monopole is needed to replace a 300-foot guide tower scheduled for removal and to prevent a coverage gap along Interstate 85. "Our ask is for a monopole that is a 197 feet tall rather than one that is only a 120 feet in height," Brogdon said, adding that RF propagation studies and a fall-zone letter from Sabre Industries were submitted in support of waivers from height and setback standards. The applicant noted FirstNet and public-safety considerations and supplied an AT&T engineer letter asserting that a 197-foot structure is required to approximate existing service.
County consultant David Dyer told the commission that, under the county ordinance, the fall zone must be the tower height plus 10 percent and that a 197-foot tower would create a 217-foot fall zone at the proposed location. Dyer said that at that measurement "it would extend into the interstate" and therefore conflict with the ordinance absent an exception. Commissioners debated whether monopoles are more likely to buckle at a hinge point or to fall like a tree and whether alternative placements or lower heights could meet coverage needs. After discussion the commission voted 3–2 to deny the application as presented.
