PTC facing pressure for, against new cell towers

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 11:18pm
By: John Munford

Cellphone companies Tuesday night presented their case for the necessity of new cellphone towers to the Peachtree City Council and Planning Commission.

The city is working with the cellphone companies to develop plans that limit the amount of new celltowers needed for the future, said Community Development Director David Rast. He said the work will likely be done within four to six weeks with a proposal then brought forward to the City Council for consideration.

City Manager Bernie McMullen said the city may also want to look at its zoning ordinance to further restrict where cellphone towers can be located and also perhaps make it easier for carriers to locate on the same tower and thus reduce the need for additional towers in a certain area.

Currently the towers can be built on land zoned for open space, agriculture residential, light industrial or general industrial use.

Several cellphone carrier representatives told the City Council tonight that cellular service improvements are needed for residential neighborhoods in large part due to the proliferation of new wireless devices beyond “old fashioned” cellphones such as computer modems, smartphones such as Blackberry devices and iPhones.

Also, across Georgia 20 percent of homes have ditched their landline phone service and thus exclusively rely on their cellphones for voice calls, said Liz Hill of American Tower Corporation. ATC is a company that builds and acquires cellphone towers and leases space on them to cellphone companies. Hill said she suspected that number is higher in Peachtree City.

Hill explained pros and cons and presented photos of different types of tower structures, including one that looked like a pine tree. The antennas on top can be painted green to blend in with the trees, Hill said.

In contrast, the other more traditional type of tower which has three support legs has a significant amount of capacity in terms of accommodating the equipment of multiple cellphone carriers, she noted.

Attorney David Kirk of Troutman Sanders in Atlanta reviewed federal telecommunications regulations and explained that the federal law forbids the city from considering any potential health factors when making its decision on the location of any new cellphone towers.

Mayor Don Haddix later explained that council is getting legal direction on the matter from City Attorney Ted Meeker, and Haddix pointed out several “grey area” words in celltower regulations that could be open for interpretation in the city’s favor.

A recent proposal to erect a cell tower at St. Paul Lutheran Church near the Ardenlee subdivision drew criticism from residents at the meeting.

In part the citizens’ frustration was due to Haddix cutting off citizens’ comments on several occasions because he insisted the meeting was not about any specific proposal but instead only about the technical issues of celltowers.

Eventually some citizens had their say on the St. Paul tower anyway. The necessary rezoning for that tower was postponed last month by the planning commission with an eye on the city hosting this meeting with the cellphone companies.

Haddix committed that the city’s future plan for handing cellphone tower requests would again be brought forward for public comment for residents at a future meeting.

It was clarified that the St. Paul proposal has not been presented to the city as a formal application for a cellphone tower. But the church is pursuing a rezoning that would specifically allow the tower to be erected not only adjacent to Ardenlee but also near Crabapple Lane Elementary School.

Haddix ruffled more than a few feathers when he claimed the city did not know what St. Paul’s plans were for its rezoning. One resident countered that a Verizon Wireless attorney represented the church at the rezoning hearing and the city also had a letter from Verizon that explains its intent for the property.

Some residents were also on the offensive about a proposal from the fall in which a wireless carrier asked the city to consider leasing four or more different tower sites on recreation land near neighborhoods. But city staff noted that there are no formal proposals on the table for the city to consider in that regard.

That proposal drew fire from residents who said they don’t want cellphone towers located in their parks or near residential neighborhoods.

But the issue may put the city on a collision course for trying to balance the citizen’s wishes with the cellphone companies’ needs while also staying within constraints of federal law.

Another issue in play for potential future cellphone towers is an oval shaped zone around the city’s Falcon Field Airport.

The towers’ height is limited in those areas, which otherwise would be an ideal place for celltowers that could potentially serve the southside of the city.

While some city residents said they don’t want celltowers in residential areas, local businessman Kai Wolter told council that his hotel in the Kedron Village area has 88 rooms which have no cellphone reception, and he would like to see additional cell service provided to cure that problem.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by mltbmlcb on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:57pm.

I like # 16 and #4

Shelby Barker's picture
Submitted by Shelby Barker on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 4:25pm.

Here is a site that has pictures of cell towers that were designed to "blend" into the environment. Some are horrid while others are not half bad. Take a look.

LINK


Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 2:35pm.

I agree, they can be hidden, and even some of the worst "hiding" jobs are worse than a regular old tower.

I'll be disappointed in the City if they do anything else.

On Hwy 54 in Morrow, just north of Lake Harbin Road, behind a car wash, there is a VERY tall tree used for a cell tower...yeah it sticks out some, but it not as bad as a plain tower.

Obviously, the palm tree designs don't fit here, but in warmer climates, they fit right in.

matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:10am.

I think the water tower concept (#11) looks like a pretty good idea.


Submitted by jevank on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:56am.

From a previous article:
"Verizon has been working with the city on investigating the best place for a cell tower in the Kedron area for several years, said City Community Development Director David Rast. Blackburn noted that one ideal location would have been on the existing Fayette County water tower, but the county has a policy against allowing cellular equipment on its towers."

I think a water tower is an excellent location, since they have always been so unsightly anyway. Instead of just citing a policy against water towers, we should be looking into changing the policy with Fayette County. Why is this policy in place? Can PTC override this policy? When was the policy decided? Thing have changed drastically in the way we use cell phones in the last 10-15 years.

Shelby Barker's picture
Submitted by Shelby Barker on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:36am.

I just don't know if the location of our water tower(s) would benefit the cell phone companies. However, I do live close to a water tower and have very poor service so I think it could work.

Thanks,
Shelby Barker


opustv's picture
Submitted by opustv on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:38pm.

Companies (employers) and residents will simply leave or chose not to move here if we can not accommodate the wireless communications demands necessary. This is not 1989. It is 2010. Like it or not, the future of communications and other data services requires significant wireless capacity. We have been excluded from the WIMAX roll out (even Stockbridge and Milledgeville have that) because we lack the infrastructure. We won't be getting FIOS or fiber to the home due to our infrastructure. The wireless companies have offered to build towers that blend into the environment. What more do you want?


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 8:05am.

That's a charming chicken-little argument but not very compelling. First, this particular tower is being proposed for a residential area the zoning of which prevents the companies you're talking about from locating in. Second, lack of cell reception is hardly going to sway a company from locating in PTC. Coverage in the industrial park is strong regardless. High-speed data access in Peachtree City is on par with any other municipality in the country. It is, after all, 2010. And AT&T is completing installation of VRADs in several parts of Fayette County and PTC, albeit rather sloppily. Cruise through the Kedron area and look at the installations AT&T is performing. FIOS is just Verizon's system. AT&T's U-Verse is a better system and it's being installed in PTC right now.

Reality is that this debate is about a cell tower in a residential area. While it may assuage the need to predict the end of life as we know it in Peachtree City, this scope of this proposal is actually not that large and is far less exciting.


NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:30pm.

I mean, c'mon, are you serious? AT&T is a joke of a company as far as technology and it shows by the huge failures in, well, let's see: running a cable company, a wireless service before they bought BellSouth, an ISP, a long distance service post-deregulation...exactly WHAT does AT&T do that other don't do a helluva better and cheaper and have also proven that to be the case?
Oh wait, they are very good at luring money their way from investors despite a terrible track record. I guess that's what matters these days in the boardroom but it isn't when it comes to customers who don't flee for any other alternative.

FIOS is a serious advancement that has Comcast taking notice and now they have a whole different competitor than just the dish. AT&T will have to settle for the leftovers until they can prove they have any clue whatsoever as to how to operate a successful technology enterprise. Their "brand" is absolute dirt with a lot of the "younger crowd" who are the biggest spenders on tech and while U-Verse looks like a step in the right direction, there's a reason that Verizon has much higher satisfaction ratings than AT&T on everything already. At&T is going to need several years of great service to shed their terrible reputation.


Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 2:37pm.

But I travel all over the South, into very sparsely populated areas, and rarely does my At&t cell phone not work.

That said, competition is good.

Fios won't be a serious competitor to Comcast/Dish until they can provide more than 2 HD or High Speed streams to each account. It's very limited for those of us with multiple HD TV's etc....

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:54pm.

AT&T also failed at their attempt to enter the computer industry. Just saying......


Submitted by FayetteFlyer on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 4:55pm.

This is the technology we as a people have embraced and these are the requirements to continue its improvement. It's not like we're building a nuclear power plant in the area!

Submitted by Arf on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:53am.

"Attorney David Kirk of Kilpatrick Stockton in Atlanta reviewed federal telecommunications regulations and explained that the federal law forbids the city from considering any potential health factors when making its decision on the location of any new cellphone towers."

Interesting. Since when does the federal government outlaw considering health factors when making any decision, and for what reason? Health, safety and security should always be considered with any decision, or are these all areas that only the federal government can address now?

secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:08am.

In 1997 and through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC enjoined state and local municipalities from citing health concerns as a method for restricting cell tower placements. The scientific evidence of health risks posed by cell towers is still divided and the FCC wanted to ensure that regional and national carriers wouldn't be subject to political retribution through a denial of tower placement.

However, I believe it's a smoke-screen. The FCC likes its perch as an all-powerful, omnibus cartel when it comes to communications and is going to retain its authority any way it can. It's always been a meddlesome organization at best: nefarious at worst.

I'm a customer of one of the providers seeking this tower and I live in the area which will be affected by this tower. I will benefit from this tower since my coverage at home is very weak now. That said, I'm opposed to this tower. It's yet another commercial entity which will backdoor a way around zoning, either in terms of black-letter law or regulatory spirit, in Peachtree City. It's another step towards Fairburnization or Riverdalization.


Submitted by normal on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:49am.

No problem with cell towers. We all use them and need them. They do not cost me anything. But I really hate added fees on crap such as tree permits now. I just had some trees removed. The permit process is simple and free online. Code enforcement is prompt on their inspection. NOW the city wants to charge for getting a tree permit. When will this crap stop. Its not just tree permits, Im using that as an example because its coming up new. Its time all government agencies federal, state and local stop the waste. Take pay and benefit cuts. The tea party is getting stronger day by day and this is why.

NickW's picture
Submitted by NickW on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:26am.

I wish Fayette County and every county in Georgia would ease up on tower regulations. I haven't had steady work in over two years as a surveyor. At one time celltower surveys were endless. Now you have to go through so many hoops to put one up that the cell companies move to a different market. Please lighten up I'm getting hungry.


matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:20am.

I understand not wanting them in parks but we do need them. There is plenty of industrial space in this town I don't see why this needs to be such a battle. Is Panasonic inside of the Airport loop that might be a nice place and I am sure who ever owns the land could use the cash to pay property taxes on the place. There used to be a cable tower on 74n across from Kendron Drive. Build a tower there. It wasn't and issue then why should it be now. As for the church build one that looks like this: href=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2007/HiddenCellTower9.jpg


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.