If the action taken by the Monroe County Planning Commission Land Use Committee is any indication, AT&T will need to continue looking for a location to build a new telecommunications tower near Columbia.

Thursday night, the committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of a setback variance for a proposed 185-foot cell tower to be built on a property at 129 Hayden Drive just outside of Columbia city limits.

Land use committee chairman Dan Davis began discussion by clarifying to committee members and those commenting that the only aspect of consideration would be for the property line setback variance request – not other factors accompanying the construction of a tower such as aesthetics.

Davis added that regardless of the committee’s vote, both sides would still have a chance to argue their positions to the Monroe County Zoning Board of Appeals at its March 1 meeting.

Nathan Davenport addressed the committee as a representative of Parallel Towers LLC, the company who would install the tower on behalf of AT&T, to request setback reductions of 64, 70 and 75 percent on three sides of the property.

County zoning code requires communication towers be constructed a distance of 80 percent of the tower’s height from adjacent properties. Several committee members pointed out the setback regulation exists to protect nearby landowners in the event the structure would collapse.

Davenport argued that the tower AT&T uses currently, which is on an adjacent property and only 500 feet from the proposed tower, is at 104 percent of its usage capacity and AT&T will not be able to use the tower for any planned upgrades. Furthermore, Davenport said lease rates from SBA, owners of the existing tower, were higher than average market rates.

He continued by claiming a hardship due to narrow lot configuration, thus necessitating the variance. Davenport also said the lot would work well for the project because the elevation of the property would facilitate a shorter tower compared to surrounding properties.  

Keegan Shea, an attorney representing SBA, countered by citing an August 2020 study from an independent inspector certifying the SBA tower as suitable for use. As for the lease cost, Shea added AT&T had signed an extension within the past few years and this lease did not expire until 2025.

Referring to expected future residential development in the area, committee member Jane Kolmer disagreed with Davenport’s assertion that mobile phone coverage was a major consideration for homebuyers.

As a real estate agent, Kolmer argued prospective buyers would be much less likely to purchase a home next to a telecommunications tower rather than a location with poor cell phone reception. 

Committee member Gene Stumpf stated it would “open a can of worms” for allowing future proposed towers if the variance were approved.

Davis concluded the discussion by saying the company had not “proven a hardship,” adding the tower could be placed in a different location without need for variance and AT&T should have provided a larger search radius for a potential tower in the area.

He continued by saying recommended approval of the variance would set a “bad precedent” and called for a motion to deny recommendation to avoid a potential “huge moment of regret.”

While the variance was not recommended for approval, the final decision for the site may be determined by the zoning board in two weeks. If the variance is denied, AT&T will go back to the drawing board if it would like a new tower near Columbia.