Brandon Twp. – Allen Road residents do not want a cell tower in their backyard.
‘It’s a rural, residential area,? said Barbara Western of Allen Road.
‘The main thing is, it detracts from the natural beauty of our area.?
At issue is the approval or disapproval of a 190 foot cell tower on Allen Road.
At the Aug. 12 Brandon Township Planning Commisson meeting, about 30 residents gathered to express their concerns regarding the tower.
‘The FCC is heavy handed in not prohibiting communication,? said Tim Palulian, Building and Planning Director of Brandon township. ‘While it will allow for aesthetic and environmental restrictions, filling holes in communication is still a grey area,? he added.
Natural beauty or not, the decision of the commission is whether another cell tower in the area is necessary. Would this tower fill the dropped cell calls along M-15, and if the tower is turned down by the commission, will the denial be strong enough to meet Federal communication ordinances.
Palulian says that the planning commission must be diligent and assure placement of a tower has the minimum amount of environmental and aesthetic impact, and whether it’s necessary to be there.
‘Our ordinance requires that a communication company must try to co-locate on an existing tower first. They must prove that (method) would not fill the hole (in Sprint communication),? Palulian said.
At the Aug 12 planning commission meeting the commission tabled any decision on the special use permit until October.
In January 2003, resident Scott Constable, along with Sprint Spectrum PCS, submitted an application for a special assessment request to construct a 190 foot monopole tower on 40 acres of property owned by Constable.
‘Laws for the township are like the rules you use in baseball,? said Barry Ziehm, an Allen Road resident.
‘When you use them to your advantage sometimes you win.?
Sprint claimed that areas in the township had gaps in coverage resulting in dropped cell phone calls, primarily on a two mile stretch of M-15.
Construction of the tower on Constable’s property theoretically would cover the holes in communication, according to Sprint calculations.
The commission, however, did not grant the special use permit in January because of environmental concerns regarding the wetland on the property.
The commission also wanted further proof that an additional cell tower was necessary.
Township ordinance requires that towers may not be constructed so long as there is an area tower that a communication provider could co-locate (or piggy back) onto, to provide the same area coverage.
‘They were asked to prove the new tower would fill the holes in communication,? said Palulian.
‘After the initial meeting the planning commission had a number of open questions about the need for a tower, and if there is a need, is it located in an area of the least impact aesthetically and with the least encroachments on the wet lands.?
The commission also had concerns about the close proximity of the tower to residential homes, asking Sprint research move the location of the tower.
‘The bottom line,? said Palulian, ‘is you’re not going to insult the character (of the community) or have a negative impact.?
At the second request meeting on Aug. 12, Sprint plans showed the tower would be moved so as not to encroach on surrounding residents? property, but only a 100 foot relocation.
Palulian said Sprint proved the Department of Environmental Quality was satisfied there were no wetland violations on the property.
‘We are in a position of obligation by the Federal government and our own ordinances? the statute is not to prohibit towers but the burden of proof of necessity is placed on Sprint,? said Palulian.
‘If they can prove the hole needs to be filled we can’t dispute it and that’s the planning commission’s charge.?
‘We’ll probably make a decision in 60 days, either it goes up, or down.?