By Alex Kraus

The Rockbridge County Planning Commission Wednesday recommended a smaller version of a hotly contested cell phone tower being proposed for rural Kerr’s Creek, which the builder says is needed to fill in reception gaps on Interstates 64 and 81.

The commission agreed to recommend a special permit to build a 125-foot cell phone tower, 25 feet shorter than what Pegasus Tower Company, Ltd., applied for in November. The new height is also 25 feet shorter than the minimum that Verizon Wireless said it could use in the application.

“We’ll have to analyze that for impact on service and impact on [location of adjacent towers],” said Pegasus director Harold Timmons after Wednesday night’s meeting.

The recommendation now moves on to the Board of Supervisors, which has 30 days to accept or reject it.

photo simulation courtesy of Pegasus Tower Company

Pegasus presented this doctored view from Chesnut Grove Trail that includes the proposed 150-foot tower in Kerr's Creek.

The tower, to be located 15 miles northeast of the interchange of I-81 and I-64, is designed to fill in weak service areas for both interstates. Although the original plans for the 150-foot tower could have accommodated six carriers, Pegasus filed for the permit on behalf of Verizon Wireless, the only company currently proposing to use the tower. At the Wednesday meeting, a representative from Cingular also expressed interest in sharing the tower.

During the meeting, Kerr’s Creek citizens presented petitions both against the 150-foot tower (57 signatures) and in favor of it (148 signatures). David Bowden, a Kerr’s Creek resident who lives a half-mile from the proposed site, described the tower as “an eyesore,” based on simulated illustrations.

“It doesn’t fit in with the area at all. It’s adjacent to the Interstate on a small hillside, but as you cross over the Interstate into our neighborhood, it really overwhelms. Going by the pictures where they superimposed the tower over the land, it overwhelms the site,” he said.

The planning commission added stipulations on Wednesday night that the base of the site must be shielded by an eight-foot wooden fence, white pine, and sycamore trees. The commission said Pegasus must also create a way to deal with drainage problems on the land.

Residents have also expressed concern with the tower being only 4,300 feet away from a nearby airstrip.

“It seems blatantly obvious that there’s a landing strip there and that there’s a safety issue,” said Sherri Holland, whose parents live on property adjacent to the proposed site.

A report from the Federal Aviation Administration filed with the special permit application reads, “[D]ue to location and height of this structure, it poses no obvious threat to air navigation.” The FAA therefore would not require the tower to be painted or lighted. However, it was revealed in Wednesday night’s meeting that the nearby airstrip was not considered by the FAA because it is privately-owned. Representatives from Pegasus explained that the airstrip’s owner would need to appeal to the FAA for official consideration.

Holland said her father has multiple sclerosis and a newly-developed heart condition, and she is concerned about the possible health hazards of having a communications tower so close. The base of the proposed structure is 50 feet away from the edge of her parents’ property.

Bowden and Holland were the most vocal opponents to the plans at Wednesday night’s meeting. Bowden’s temper flared as he questioned the seemingly miniscule coverage difference between a 150-foot tower and an 80-foot tower - an argument that seemed to sway commissioners Chris Wise and Tim Welsh. But Holland’s intermittent questions became more distressed as the two-and-a-half hour discussion slowly teetered in favor of Pegasus.

“Why are we not considering other sites?” she asked late in the meeting, while the board was considering which kind of tree should be used to hide the tower’s base.

Bowden previously raised concerns about the permit application itself.

“The current ordinance calls for the applicant to look in a three-mile radius of the proposed site for any existing structure that can be used instead of putting a new one up,” Bowden said. However, Bowden said he is not satisfied that Pegasus has fulfilled this requirement.

Because of Verizon’s specific geographical requirements, Pegasus noted in the application that they have been unable to consider other nearby locations. Joe Sugg, chief operating officer for Pegasus Tower, responded by saying that no other site within a three-mile radius would fulfill his client’s goal of fitting into an already-existing network of towers. Sugg said that cellular towers “hand off” calls from one to another while a cell phone user is traveling. While he declined to name his company’s client, Verizon Wireless is the only carrier named in the application.

“There are other towers planned to be developed in the area, so moving it would not be practical,” he said. “You’d be duplicating efforts three miles away and reducing coverage in other areas… If you move it one mile closer to one of the towers, you move it one mile too far away from another. It doesn’t work like that.”

An alternative to building a 150-foot tower, according to the application, is to build several 80-foot towers in the area. Sugg said this alternative would be wasteful and inefficient.

“What would happen if we build a shorter tower is, the next user [cellular carrier] that wanted to use it would have to build another tower. We are trying to maximize service to the community without building more than one tower,” he said. 

While Sugg said he believes the proposed site to be optimal for coverage, he added, “It is within the community’s right to tell us that this is not in the right location.”

Sherri Holland said she hopes to make full use of that right.

“Bottom line, we need to convince the Board of Supervisors to tell Pegasus, ‘Not this location; find another one. Find another one that’s acceptable for the community so that everyone will be OK with it.’”
 

Produced by Washington and Lee journalism students.

Lead supervisor:      Prof. Claudette Artwick

Reporting supervisor: Prof. Doug Cumming

Editing supervisor:  Prof. Pamela Luecke

Technical supervisor:  Michael Todd