An example of small cell facility for a 5G wireless connection is seen at the intersection of Smith Valley Road and Polk Street in Greenwood in June 2021.
SUBMITTED
More than 60 people filled the west courthouse annex to voice their opposition to 5G towers during a marathon meeting Tuesday night.
The Johnson County Board of Zoning Appeals had a special meeting at the Johnson County Courthouse West Annex to hear 28 waivers filed by TeleCAD on behalf of Verizon Wireless to install 28 43-foot 5G wireless towers in 11 residential subdivisions in White River Township. The petitions had previously been denied by the county’s planning department as a majority of the tower locations are within areas that are within underground utility districts. Verizon requested special exception waivers for the towers, which led to Tuesday night’s special meeting.
Three of the waiver requests — for towers in the Innisbrooke and Makena Ridge subdivisions — were continued before the meeting after requests from remonstrators. The waivers will be heard at the board’s April 26 meeting. The board eventually voted to deny all the remaining requests after a series of public hearings for each subdivision.
All of the 5G towers except for one would have three lights installed, and three light poles would have replaced existing poles and street signs. However, the existing street poles are not owned by the county, so Verizon would need permission from homeowner associations to do so. Verizon would have paid for the electric bill and maintenance for all the polls, according to county documents.
Staff with the county’s planning department recommended the Board of Zoning Appeals deny all the waiver requests. County staff said waivers were supposed to be treated as a special exception, but Verizon’s requests did not meet that criteria, according to a report prepared in advance of Tuesday’s meeting.
Verizon’s request to install 5G towers, legally described as “small cell facilities,” is not listed as a special exception under any of the county’s zoning districts. Additionally, special exceptions are required to have a “harmonious relationship” to adjacent properties, and these facilities would not due to other utilities being underground, the report says.
The towers would also not preserve the purposes of the zoning ordinance for the area, the report says.
The report mentioned a highway department memo on the towers where highway engineers had said the proposed towers failed to meet the required minimum distance from a traveled way. The towers were too close to the street, and needed to be at least 7 to 10 feet back from the edge of driveways, the memo said.
During the first hour of the meeting, Russell Brown, an attorney representing Verizon, asked for a continuance for all petitions but one. Brown told the board the company was not aware of the highway department’s requirements until after the staff report was completed last week, and needed time to redo the requests. The board denied the continuance.
The towers are needed because Verizon saw a need for additional 5G coverage in several of the subdivisions. The towers will meet a coverage objective for the company, and the towers are specifically located in areas to best serve Verizon’s network, Brown said.
Small cell facilities can be put within the district, however, they have to be co-located on existing utility poles. Other utilities in the area had declined Verizon’s request to do so, Brown later told the board.
Many local residents spoke out against the tower during a series of public hearings. Several residents questioned the location of the towers, the need for them and possible health impacts. Other residents voiced concerns about having more lights in their neighborhoods and their property values going down.
Fair Oaks subdivision resident Kyle Dougherty told the board Verizon representatives had not given enough proof as to why the towers could not be moved. Gordon, who said he is a Verizon customer, has full 5G coverage inside his home without the tower, and many of the people in the affected neighborhoods have the financial means to have private internet networks, he said.
“We have the ability to use our private network to be able to offset any shortages or lack of coverage we may have from any cell phone provider,” Gordon said.
Karen Wildey, a real estate agent who lives in Fairview Heights, said she was concerned about how property values might be impacted by the towers. Windsong subdivision resident Nancy Plake echoed that sentiment and was also concerned about what happens if the towers were knocked down.
“If that tower falls, I’m going to have two smashed cars,” she said.
Many local residents also expressed concerns about possible health effects from the towers. Some were concerned about the limited amount of research on the effects of 5G.
Amy Sanders, a Southwood Estates resident, told the board health concerns were a major issue for her. Another resident, Dodd Drayer, told the board no one can tell residents with 100% certainty that having towers nearby is just as safe as not having them at all.
“These are unknowns,” he said.
Very few studies have been done about the effects of 5G, according to the World Health Organization. There has been more research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields across the spectrum, however, results have been inconsistent, according to Healthline, a medical news publication.
During the Fairview Heights hearing, board member Chad Bowman asked if the board could take a motion on an individual petition within the group. However, the board attorney Jacob Bowman said they could not do so without changing the rules they established for the meeting, and if the board decided to do so, they would need to revote on the previous group of petitions, Jacob Bowman said.
The audience expressed disappointment and booed during this conversation, and the board continued to vote as they had already done. The vote for the Fairview Heights towers was split so the petition was continued until the board’s April meeting.
As for next steps, Brown told the board Verizon had a few options. The company could redesign the poles and resubmit their requests, go to another community or ask for the denials to be reviewed by a judge.
