BRANDON TOWNSHIP – Citizens last week cited concerns about noise, wetlands and just plain appearance of a proposed new cell tower.
Planning commissioners agreed to wait at least 90 days before ruling on the request from Sprint Spectrum PCS for a 190-foot monopole between Allen Road and Weideman Drive.
Although proposed for a 40-acre site according to township ordinance, the parcel is close enough to residences to cause many to believe their property values and their quality of life will decline if it is built.
Allen Road resident Tom Dandreta said he appeared before the planning commission last October asking permission for a building project, but was met with opposition.
“There were so many concerns that I would build a monstrosity in a nice neighborhood,” he said. “Now there is going to be a monstrosity built in my backyard. It’s a sin to allow something like this in a beautiful neighborhood.”
Some said the tower would cause drainage problems at the proposed location, and claimed that state officials have already opened an investigation for possible violations of wetlands protection laws.
The standing-room-only crowd included attorney Pat Parker, retained by a number of Allen Road residents to represent them in the matter. Parker presented a petition with more than 90 signatures, and urged the commission to reject the request for a special use permit.
Potential as well as current residents voiced their objections. Mike Nazar is building a home on Allen Road, saying the site was the result of a long search.
“We finally settled on this property because we thought it was the prettiest,” Nazar said. “I’m concerned about property values decreasing.”
“I feel sorry for the people across the street; it’s going to be in their back yard,” said Allen Road resident John Ellsworth. “It’s going to be in my front yard. I feel this will be a financial loss for my property value.”
Sprint officials said they need another cell tower in the area to fill a “drop out” zone along M-15, and said the proposed site is the only one of five suggested by township officials that meets their needs.
Sprint attorney Wally Haley said the company is in a no-win situation when it comes to citizen objections.
“If I move the tower to another site, it’s the same issue,” Haley said. “We trade one group of protesters for another.”
Sprint representatives admitted that they have some paperwork to get in order, including an up-to-date map documenting their need for another tower in the area.
Haley said the company always contracts with an independent company to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account before building. Since the tower is lower than 200 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration does not require a light at the top of the tower, and he said it would not need an emergency generator and, therefore, would not generate a noise concern.
Resident Ann Barth was among those saying local residents should not have to sacrifice to meet the needs of commuters and travelers.
“This is a rural community, and I think we have to slow down the process,” Barth said.
Planning commissioners raised other issues, including a need for screening of an access road to further soften the impact on nearby residents.
The commission vote requires the company to respond to all the stated concerns before it will be considered again, with a minimum of 90 days before it can again appear on the commission agenda.
Commission Chairman Joseph Rohovsky complimented the crowd for their demeanor, and emphasized that the commission does not consider any case a rubber stamp and has, indeed, denied many special use applications.
“We take each case on its own merits,” he said.