New 160-foot cell tower approved off of Cahaba Valley Road
At its first August meeting, the Shelby County Planning Commission approved a conditional use request to permit a new cellular tower for the area between Cahaba Valley Road and Doug Baker Boulevard.
The 160-foot structure, which will include a 155-foot cell tower with a 5-foot lighting pole on top, is set to be built on a property off of Vann Drive, which is approximately 0.23 miles from Doug Baker Boulevard and 0.77 miles from U.S. 280. The tower would be built on a 2.64-acre square lot, but would occupy only a small portion of that lot. The square portion in which the tower will be built is in the center of the lot, about 160 feet from each side, and will be surrounded by an 8-foot fence.
When presenting to the planning commission, Planner II Christie Pannell-Hester said the 8-foot barrier would have to be opaque and compatible with surrounding developments, buildings, etc.
According to Pannell-Hester and Andrew Rotenstreich, who was representing Eco-Site LLC, the company that will construct the tower, the tower will have equipment for T-Mobile to increase its service area. There will also be room for up to three more tenants — or other wireless providers — on the tower. All equipment from any tenants would be enclosed in the fenced area, Rotenstreich said.
The area around the new tower is overloaded with users, Rotenstreich told the planning commission, and T-Mobile has trouble with coverage in the area.
“They need to get better coverage for their customers, but also there’s a site nearby that the coverage is being used so extensively that it’s making it so that existing site is not fully operational, and therefore they need this additional site to offload capacity from the use of the nearby tower,” Rotenstreich said.
He provided maps and graphics showing the current coverage and capacity to explain how they settled on the proposed site. While there are multiple towers in a 2-mile radius with T-Mobile on them, Rotenstreich said topographical elements such as ridges impact the strength of signal. He also said that the red area — where a boost was needed from an extra tower — is surrounded by residential areas, which made it difficult to find a lot where they could build the tower.
“This was basically the only site in the area that would work,” he said.
Rotenstreich also presented a study and article that stated there is not proof that cell towers adversely affect property values.
Multiple nearby residents spoke up about the cell tower, stating concerns ranging from how the tower might affect satellite television in the area to what safety measures would be in place around the tower.
Rotenstreich said the tower would not affect satellite signals and there would be barbed wire atop the 8-foot fence, in addition to “no trespassing” signs around the fence and measures on the tower to prevent climbing. In regard to other concerns, he said no trees outside of the approximate 80-by-80-foot space within the fence would be cleared.
He also recommended against a “tree” design that is sometimes used for towers, after residents asked if it was an option to help the tower blend in more. Those can be used in situations where the tower does not need to be as tall, he said, but would stick out even more in this situation.
The four present planning commissioners voted in favor of the conditional use request. Commissioners Amy Smith, Bill Kinnebrew and Ken Wilder were absent.
The planning commission also approved a case regarding two lots in the 32nd sector, Phase II of Highland Lakes. This request, for approval of a final plat to subdivide 25.71 acres into two residential lots, was unanimously approved by present commissioners, although some residents voiced concerned.
Two neighboring property owners voiced concern over sediment, runoff and blasting during construction, as well as an impact on property values.
Norman Robinson, a resident of Wateredge Circle, said he was told nothing would be built behind his property when he purchased it two and a half years ago. The property on the agenda, according to the Highland Lakes master plan, was previously set to hold about 22 homes, rather than the two under discussion tonight.
Scott Vaughn, representing Arrington Engineering, said that he could not say with 100 percent certainty that there would be no blasting or dynamite used on the lots, as that would be up to the property owners, but did say that is often a “last resort” due to all the regulations and cost.
County Chief Development Officer Chad Scroggins also noted, in regard to questions on runoff and sediment, that the increase in impermeable surface would only be as large as the house and the driveway, which are a fraction of the entire lot. He also said because the terrain is rocky, the area was already not a lot of filtration of water through the ground.
“So, theoretically, the amount of water flow will not increase very much because of the fact that you have rock, which is already an impervious surface,” Scroggins said.
The commission also voted to withdraw a case regarding a 13..5-acre property on Highway 119. The case had previously been carried over from the July 17 and June 20 meetings.