Key objections centered around the tower’s height and visibility from nearby residential properties and future developments. Resident Lynn Johnson described the tower as a “20-story Tower” that would dominate the landscape, expressing concerns over its placement in an open pasture visible from numerous homes. Alexandra Baker, also a resident, echoed these sentiments, requesting the council recommend denial of the application due to the adverse effects on the community.

Nancy Johnson further criticized the proposed visual mitigation measures, such as a six-foot PVC fence and shrubs, as inadequate. She emphasized the proximity of the tower to residential backyards and pool areas, arguing that the structure would negatively affect quality of life and property values. Robert Wellbourne, representing the Willow Run Property Owners Association, described attempts to camouflage the tower as a tree as unrealistic given the lack of similarly tall trees in the area. He urged the council to take the community’s objections seriously.

In response, the applicant’s legal counsel, Mary Solis, defended the proposed site’s compliance with county code requirements and described the scientific process involved in determining suitable tower locations. Solis, accompanied by a team of professionals, argued that the proposed site was the only viable option within the designated search area, a claim that was met with skepticism by some council members. The applicant also agreed to limit the tower height to 185 feet, including a lightning rod, in response to safety concerns.

The discussion extended to broader implications for local property values. A speaker from Lee Powerder Incorporated presented research indicating that proximity to cell towers does not adversely affect property values, citing studies conducted over 25 years. Despite this, council members and residents remained concerned about the tower’s visual impact and its effects on the community’s quality of life.

The meeting also addressed the potential necessity and implications of the new cell tower installation in the context of existing towers, some located approximately 1.3 miles away. A representative highlighted the technical demands of 5G technology, which require tighter spacing between towers to optimize signal strength and coverage. However, the proposal’s visual ramifications were deemed significant enough to warrant further scrutiny by the council.

Additionally, alternative solutions such as small cell technology were discussed, with a representative from Verizon noting that numerous small cells would be required to achieve similar coverage to a larger tower. This solution, while potentially less visually intrusive, was considered impractical due to challenges with fiber connectivity and rights of way.

As the council deliberated, they balanced the proposed tower’s functional necessity against its visual impact. Despite the need for improved telecommunications infrastructure highlighted by recent emergencies, the council expressed reservations about the appropriateness of the proposed site. Ultimately, the motion regarding the cell tower application passed, forwarding the application for further consideration.

Later in the meeting, the council shifted focus to the impact of a recent natural disaster that caused significant damage in the county. A council member recounted the devastation and detailed ongoing efforts to assist affected residents, including debris removal and collaboration with non-profit organizations. The council emphasized the need for mental health resources and assured the community of continued recovery efforts.