An 85-foot setback variance that will allow for the constuction of a cell tower in Seymour Lake Township Park was granted last week in a 4-0 vote by the Oxford Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Verizon Wireless is planning to place a 195-foot monopole on a 2,475-square-foot piece of land in the northwest corner of the 132-acre park.

In October, the planning commission granted preliminary and final site plan approval, as well as special land use approval, for the tower.

However, site plan approval was conditioned on Verizon Wireless obtaining a variance from the ZBA related to two setbacks that do not conform to the zoning ordinance.

The proposed tower is located 110 feet from the park’s northern and western property lines. The township zoning ordinance requires cell towers must be set back from all property lines at least the height of the tower’s highest point, which, in this case, is 195 feet.

Jonathan Crane, the Rochester-based attorney representing Verizon, told the ZBA that’s a “very common” ordinance requirement throughout southeast Michigan and “it’s also a very old” one.

He said the language is designed to protect against older-type towers that simply fell over when they failed.

Monopoles, according to Crane, don’t simply fall over. They’re designed to “buckle” and “collapse” upon themselves to prevent damaging what’s around them, he explained.

Crane assured the ZBA that monopoles are very sturdy structures.

“I have personally been involved in more than 400 antennas in Michigan and northern Ohio, and there’s never been a failure of one,” he said.

He told the ZBA about a monopole in Illinois that took a “direct hit” from a tornado, but “didn’t fail at all.” The welds were inspected and it was “put back into service.”

“We couldn’t believe it,” Crane said.

Monopoles, he explained, are “designed to flex and move” with the wind.

“These things are built,” Crane said. “They do not fall down.”

Crane also noted that while the tower would be located 110 feet from the park’s northern and western property lines, it would actually be more than 370 feet from the nearest house.

The only opposition to the cell tower during the public hearing was expressed by Stephen Drouillard, who lives at 2845 Seymour Lake Rd. His property line is located 110 feet west of the tower site.

“We really don’t want this tower as a neighbor,” he said.

Drouillard and his wife have owned their home for five years and they don’t like the idea of the tower spoiling their view of the park.

“For the rest of our lives, we have to stare at this 195-foot tower,” he said.

In addition to the view, Drouillard is also concerned about his property value being “negatively impacted” by the tower.

He and his wife invested a lot of time and money restoring a house that had sat vacant for almost three years in order to return it to its “glory days.”

Now, Drouillard fears the cell tower will prevent them from recouping their investment.

“We will struggle to sell this property,” he told the ZBA, and if it does sell, it will be for 20 to 30 percent less than its value.

To Drouillard, it’s “common sense” that many potential buyers won’t even look at the house once they see the nearby tower. He noted if he and his wife “had any idea that this was going to happen to us, we would not have bought the property.”

“My wife and I feel like we’re being punished for some reason,” said Drouillard later in the meeting.

Crane believes opposition to cell towers is rooted in “a fear of change,” but once they’re up, people don’t notice them and they don’t impact development around them.

“We’ve never had anybody call up and say, ‘Please take this tower down. It’s ugly and I can’t sell my property,’” he told the ZBA.

Crane’s never seen any documentation that cell towers “adversely impact” property values.

ZBA Chairman Jim Butler asked, “Why does it have to be here?”

Crane explained there’s a radius of only two-tenths-of-a-mile in which the tower can be placed in order to meet Verizon’s coverage needs and comply with the township’s zoning ordinance.

ZBA officials asked how long the tower would be in use before it would be considered obsolete due to technological advances.

Barring any revolutionary innovations in the wireless industry, Crane said, “We’re anticipating no substantial changes for 25 to 30 years.”

Butler inquired as to how often cell towers require variances from local zoning ordinances.

Crane estimated variances are needed in 80 to 85 percent of the cases.

“It’s a lot of them – most of them,” he said.

ZBA Member Korey Bailey asked about the possibility of reducing the proposed tower’s height to 110 feet in order to meet the setback requirements.

“It simply will not work,” Crane replied. “It will not meet the coverage requirements.”

“We have a few feet at the top – 3-4 feet, something like that – we can monkey around with, but we can’t get it down that low,” he continued.

“Taking it down to 150 feet will not work. One hundred seventy-five feet will not work,” Crane noted. “We need the height.”

Crane was also asked about the possibility of putting Verizon’s antenna on an existing tower or other structure.

“We have looked at virtually every antenna and very tall structure, church spires, so on and so forth,” he replied. “There’s nothing out there that will meet our needs.”

Drouillard believes it’s “just outrageous” to put something “so industrial in a park,” but if the tower has to go somewhere in the park, it should be in the northeast corner near the existing maintenance building.

“I know in the past that (area) was a consideration (for a tower site),” he said. “That’s the more ideal spot.”

Butler told Drouillard, “I appreciate your comments. I really do.”

However, he explained the ZBA’s “sole function” is to consider the request for a “dimensional variance,” not debate whether the tower should be built in the park or where.

“We’re not the planning commission,” Butler said. “That’s not our role here.”

ZBA Member Sue Bellairs said she understands the homeowner’s perspective in this situation, but these towers have to be built somewhere because people these days expect cell service.

“Everybody wants a cell phone,” she said.

She likened it to other utilities infrastructure. “Nobody wanted the water tower in (the) Red Barn (subdivision),” Bellairs said. “That was a big issue, but you have to have water.”

“Some things you just do,” she said.

With approvals from both the planning commission and ZBA under its belt, the proposed Verizon tower must now go before one more body, the township board of trustees.

Township officials are expected to address the proposed license agreement at their 7 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 14 meeting.

Under the proposed agreement, Verizon would pay $15,600 annually for the initial term of five years. The proposed agreement would be automatically extended for four additional five-year terms unless Verizon is in default or terminates the agreement. The annual license fee is proposed to increase by 5 percent per five-year term.

Revenue from the agreement would go directly into parks and recreation budget, not the township’s general fund.

Verizon’s monopole will be capable of supporting antennas for other wireless carriers.

However, each additional carrier would be required to negotiate a separate lease with the township, which means more potential revenue for the parks department.

“We anticipate people will be coming on this tower very shortly,” Crane said. “The township does, too.”