By: TRACY HARRIS
Staff Writer
A Planning Commission meeting was held the last week in November. In a bold move, Mayor Luna made a motion to deny Southern Towers’ application completely. Nine days later, the rules were suspended by Alderman Kerber in an effort to push the cell tower back through. Read below for the latest on the Cornersville Cell Tower.
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Cornersville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2024. Planning Commission members present were Trina Rios, John Luna, Doris Arthur, Sharon Pennington, and Greg Venable.
The first item on the agenda was the Site Plan Review for the telecommunication tower known as TN-056 Hatchett Hollow, on Peggy Burrow’s property near Cornersville Elementary School.
Chairperson Trina Rios opened the hearing at 6:30 p.m.
Residents have voiced opposition to the tower and zoning/rezoning during public hearings, Board of Mayor and Aldermen meetings, and Board of Zoning Appeals meetings.
Among the biggest concerns during the Public Hearing were whether or not cell towers pose health risks, nearby properties losing value, and why a different property cannot be used.
Jon Salsman issued a packet to the board as he explained, “Williamson County voted to move theirs…It was first planned 600 feet away from one of their schools. Their planning commission voted unanimously to make it 1,500 feet. In this packet, you can see where Williamson County did that because from California to the East Coast, schools are doing the same. They’re taking notice…They want towers away from schools. I know our School Board Superintendent was against it. He’s not wanting it. I understand he made a phone call down here.”
Town Administrator/Recorder, Taylor Brandon, confirmed that Marshall County Director of Schools, Jacob Sorrells, did call and that he was opposed to the tower going in so close to the school.
Evan Bennett, a resident of nearby Terry Lane, for over 10 years said, “Most of my working history has been with microwave energy, RF energy, and electronics. I know the damage it could do if you’re not careful. It will kill you eventually if you get enough of it. We wore protective shielding, worked in shielded rooms, and there were protections in place. The [proposed] tower is within 650 feet from my door.” Bennett urged the decision to be made with nearby schoolchildren in mind.
In Cornersville, this cell tower and zoning go hand-in-hand. Brandon has stated that he has been unable to locate any records of the town being zoned.
Residents, including a former mayor, disagree. They say that the town has been zoned and that records do exist.
This summer, some residents noticed signs about zoning going up in their yards overnight after a meeting was held about the tower.
That night, Cam Harmon once again asked Brandon for clarification on zoning: “So, y’all ain’t got no zoning in the city of Cornersville, right?”
Brandon replied, “There was no zoning in the property where the tower was proposed or the properties around that area unless it went through the Planning Commission or if it was annexed. So, there are a few that were zoned before that. But, by and large, most of the properties aren’t [zoned].”
Rios opened up the discussion to two aldermen in the audience to speak after public comments.
Taylor Pickett won an Alderman seat on Nov. 5, 2024, but at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, he had not been sworn in.
Pickett read a letter from a group of citizens opposed to the tower. He held up a stack of letters that were handwritten by children as well. He also read from “5G, Cell towers and Wireless Legal & Liability Issues,” available at ehtrust.org, issued by Environmental Health Trust.
Pickett said, “I live exactly where the tower’s going to be, 74 feet off my property. I understand some of you don’t care where it goes because you don’t live there. If it was in your backyard, you’d be fighting just like everybody else is. It’s literally in my backyard.”
Janice Kerber gave her background to the audience, which included her moving to Cornersville three years ago and her lifetime in education, including 16 years in a classroom.
Kerber broke everything down like a teacher, complete with details on a large presentation board with drawings, dates, scientific data, and background information.
According to Kerber, the whole thing started “because Verizon users started calling with concerns about their service.” Verizon conducted drive tests, found out where calls were dropping, and measured areas for ideal placement for towers.
Criticism on social media made its way to the Planning Commission and the Aldermen. Kerber being one of those, she addressed it head-on. “On Facebook, somebody put a study out that children were having lower test scores because they lived near, or their school was near a cell tower. I’m a science teacher, as my inference is, perhaps it is because their cell service is better. Maybe they need to be less on this [held up her cell phone] and studying for exams. But the biggest, biggest EMF emitter that impacts every single individual…on this planet, is our sun!”
Ralph Wyngarden, the attorney who represents Southern Towers, BTS, spoke last. He said it was important to note “When they originally submitted an application it was for special use approval for the tower height and location, and it was for site plan approval and that application was deemed complete as of May 30, 2024.”
According to Wyngarden, the timeline is as follows:
JUNE: BZA meeting on June 4 which Wyngarden’s colleague attended and “as was mentioned there was questions about notice to commercial properties. All the residents were notified but there were commercial properties that didn’t get notice so no decision was made at that meeting.”
JULY: “Then, there was another BZA which I attended on July 29, and we went into a lot of details about the need for the site and all of those issues. The threshold issue at that meeting was the question of what the zoning classification of the parcel was. It was determined that that was not clear and so no decision was made at that meeting either.”
AUG: “On August 9, we provided written notice that the 60-day period for a decision on the application that’s in your ordinance, had expired and that the application was deemed approved because there was no timely denial or approval of the request. That’s under 5.1 e2e of your ordinance. Mr. Brandon didn’t confirm this approval. It’s the position of Southern Towers that since the application was for special use approval and for site plan review, that the 60-day rule resulted in approval, not only of the tower height and location but also the site plan.
NOW: “Because of that, our position is that tonight’s meeting is not really necessary. Mr. Brandon made a thorough and accurate 21-page analysis where he went through all of the site plan requirements and how the application complies with all the site plan requirements. He recommended that you approve the site plan and authorize a zoning compliance certificate…By participating in tonight’s meeting, Southern Towers does not waive its rights to contend at a later date that the site plan was already approved by the 60-day rule.”
“What I did hear over and over again were concerns about health, concerns about health, concerns about health. This tower will not impact health other than in a positive way not supporting quicker communications.”
The attorney finalized his statement with, “We’re here for a site plan, not a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the tower, its height, or its location, but a site plan and details as outlined in Mr. Brandon’s 21-page report.”
Mayor John Luna asked why the signed agreement listed a 50 x 50 compound and the BZA listed a 60 x 60. Wyngarden explained there is an additional 10 feet of landscaping around the compound.
Rios asked Brandon for clarification about the first two BZA meetings.
Brandon and Rios discussed it back and forth.
Rios said, “I guess hindsight’s 20/20 because, to me, it [the application] should’ve been denied because it was not in the correct zone. The easement, and the land swapping, I don’t know anything about that. But I do know that there has not been a legal, at least at this moment, there has not been a legal survey done, and a legal easement done from that property from this parcel to that parcel.”
Wyngarden interjected, “There’s an easement on the way.”
Rios replied, “There is not an easement recorded. You may have some written documentation, but there is nothing recorded with Marshall County. You’re crossing over one parcel onto another parcel so that parcel is actually landlocked.”
Greg Venable pointed out, “Maybe we ought to review our process and the way this is implemented as far as the application process…that the timing isn’t to the benefit of the city when someone applies, as the ordinance is currently written.”
Sharon Pennington asked Brandon to explain in detail how an application is approved, denied, or suspended. She asked him several times why an application is automatically approved 60 days after it is filed, without any communication to the BZA or Planning Commission. Pennington serves on the BZA and Planning Commission.
For close to 90 minutes, Doris Arthur remained mostly silent and the remaining four voting members discussed the issues of the town’s ordinance, the 60-day automatic approval, lack of communication, how the Board of Zoning Appeals has never even voted on the cell phone tower, how properties on the Hwy 31A Corridor were not zoned until November, and how to interpret when an application is deemed complete.
Finally, Mayor Luna made a motion to deny the application. Venable seconded the motion. Pennington, Venable, Rios, and Luna voted yes. Arthur voted no. It passed 4-1. The meeting adjourned immediately after the vote at 8:54 p.m.
Board of Mayor and Aldermen
Nine days later, on Dec. 5, 2024, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen met at 6:00 p.m. After the regular agenda was complete, Kerber made a motion to suspend the rules. Town Attorney Billy Ostermann cautioned that she give a reason rather than just throwing out the rules without specificity.
Kerber clarified it was “to discuss the tower issue as was discussed and the decision that was made by the Planning Commission.” Arthur seconded.
Kerber added, “I move to vacate the Planning Commission’s decision made on Nov. 26.” Kerber moved to approve the tower based on the 60-day rule.
Ostermann wanted to explain legalities before discussion. “As far as the height and location requirement the quote approval of the tower, that’s moot. It’s already happened as a result of the 60 days. From a legal perspective, I don’t know if it would be correct to just categorically reject everything the Planning Commission did because I don’t know that everything that the Planning Commission did would arguably be wrong. Now, it was incomplete in that to the best of my knowledge there was no written reasons for denial of the site plan which the ordinance does require. Whoever gets denied has the right to know in writing why they were denied so they can rectify the reasons for the denial.”
Kerber interjected, “The verbiage that came out was that they were denying the tower.” Ostermann continued, “From what I heard from the Planning Commission, in addition to just a blanket denial to the tower, I think they were denying the site plan, the application to the tower, so I don’t know that to completely vacate everything they did would be proper. Anything outside of reviewing the site plan was not before the Planning Commission because that’s all the Zoning Ordinance says goes to the Planning Commission…They should be given the opportunity to list the reasons for the denial. Until you get the required written reasons, I don’t know that we have enough before us to say whether they were right or wrong.”
Brandon said, “We spent some time talking about the implication of the 60-day rule and if the 60 days has passed and the application is approved as to height and location, that means we’re not going to conversations about the completeness of the application. That would mean we should be past that?”
“It’s just a site plan,” Ostermann confirmed.
Brandon continued, “Right. So, we’re not talking about application or 60 days at this point, or even what’s in the application. That 60 days has passed. Maybe if whatever’s in the application, at this point, we’re looking at 60 days as opposed to the x, y, and z of the application.”
Ostermann confirmed again, “Yeah, actually now it’s just the site plan itself.” Kerber stepped in after Ostermann. “Then I’ll amend my motion. I move that we send it back to the Planning Commission for them to provide us with written reasons for why they are denying the site plan.”
Luna, a member of the Planning Commission said, “I can pretty much tell you they’re going to say to send it to BZA for a written statement for why they didn’t vote in the BZA.”
Once the Planning Commission provides the Board of Mayor and Alderman with a reason for denying the site plan, according to Ostermann, then the Board can determine if that is a proper reason for denial.
Alderman Sherry McClintock showed up during this portion of the meeting.
Johnson asked if there could be guidelines so this does not happen again. Luna said they have guidelines, the ordinance itself. When she asked him why they did not follow it and provide written reason(s) for denying it, Luna said, “Because the BZA never voted on the criteria of the 150 feet. [The first BZA meeting] was postponed without a vote. The second one, it was not voted on. So, when it came to us, the BZA had not voted on it. They said it had passed the 60 days. Of course, it had passed the 60 days before it came to us, and they hadn’t even voted on it. So, the site plan, to me, was not complete because the BZA didn’t do their part…before it came to us. I felt like the BZA should’ve had their say.”
Johnson asked Luna why they did not discuss it at the November meeting. Luna told her they had, “for three hours.” Johnson said she did not know because she was in the hospital.
Pickett pointed out that zoning was finalized on Nov. 7, 2024.
McClintock also asked Ostermann and Brandon when the 60 days started.
Very few people know when the 60 days began, even now, but the attorney and the Town Administrator/Recorder are clear on the matter. It has been as vague as the zoning issue has been this year. The property where the tower is set to go was listed as an “undeveloped” property on Cornersville Zoning Map at the beginning of the project. It was zoned as C-1 by the town in November 2024. Somehow, that property is listed Residential on Southern Towers, BTS Exhibit C.
