I am a resident who owns a home directly next to and essentially 'underneath' where a 110-foot tower is being proposed on a church property. The proposal is to erect a fake pine tree that will dwarf the other pine trees that are half the size. As a homeowner in this nice quiet community, and as a parent with 2 young toddlers, I am very concerned with this proposal and will be voicing my opposition to it. The carrier is requesting a special exception variance from the City for this project as the tower is too close to 12 homes in my neighborhood, mine being the closest. There is a large community protest on this proposal and I am concerned that the carrier has not provided the City with accurate information as it relates to their claims that there are "no other locations suitable for collocation". I'm not sure what their definition is of "not suitable for collactation" is. I have a feeling it may not be 'financially suitable' for them as opposed to it not being 'operationally suitable'. I have done quite a bit of research and found that there are 11 other towers within a 1.5 mile area that are the same height or taller. I do not believe the carrier has actually even checked with these potential candidates although I am not 100% certain. I am going to try to call the owners of these towers (most are other carriers) and see if they will provide me with that information. Do you have any suggestions that may help me? Also, can you advise if it is in the carriers best 'financial interest' to avoid collocating as opposed to building their own tower? I believe this is what the matter actually comes down to. Any help would be greatly appreciated. D. Warren, Lake City Fl. email me at dwa5824948@aol.com Thank you!!
I sent you a message to call me at my office number to go over these issues.
First... If you are concerned about health -- don't be. I have seen very cell tower health and safety study over a 24 year period and I am sure that no health risks exist.
These cell tower sites are very low power and the fact you are directly below the tower mitigates your exposure further since antennas on today's systems are directional pointing out on the horizon at the height of the antennas themselves.
Location... a carrier must show that they tried to locate according to the town's wireless ordinance or code to the best of their ability and must have proof (certified letters, rejection notices etc..) that they can not use a site that would have less impact over an existing site. I am sure that the carriers looked at everything existing before they came to this location because it is cheaper to co-locate than it is to build a new tower.
Financial hardship can not be an excuse to locate on one property or the other. These carriers own licenses that are worth billions of dollars, a judge would not support their claims of a financial hardship in an event where the best location for a site required them to pay higher rental figures and they avoided that site due to that condition.
Like this page? Show a little Social Love. Here's how...
Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?
Click on the HTML link code below.
Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.
The specific question is: were there any laws stating this tower was erected illegally adjacent to my property that now has my home in the fall zone of
My brother and his wife deeded their privately-owned land to my brother's revocable living trust. He is now deceased and I am the beneficiary of his trust.
Don't Get Burned Leasing Cell Phone Towers in 2023 - Coaching and Consulting Services.
The specific question is: were there any laws stating this tower was erected illegally adjacent to my property that now has my home in the fall zone of
