Plan panel approves ‘Cloute Hill’ cell tower permit

By Chris Spangler

The Fort Atkinson Plan Commission has approved installing a cellular tower in a residential neighborhood on the city’s northwest side.

US Cellular LLC requested a conditional-use permit to place a monopole communications tower just north of the water tower at 711 Zaffke St. 

This site was identified for the 70-foot monopole to provide better cellular and data coverage to northside residents and businesses, officials noted. In comparison, the existing water tower measures a little more than 51 feet tall.

The monopole tower will be in a fenced compound with outdoor cabinets to house the ground equipment on the city property, which is zoned as Institutional.

Meeting in regular session Tuesday, March 8, the commission voted 5-2 in favor of the conditional-use permit for the tower. Voting against the measure were members Mason Becker and Roz Highfield.

During a  public hearing on the permit Jan. 25, the Plan Commission heard from several current and former neighbors opposed to locating the cell tower atop what locally is known as “Cloute Hill.”

Concerns ranged from poor aesthetics and having service vehicles coming and going to a possible negative effect on property values and the potential for health issues, such as cancer, due to the radio frequency waves. 

During the public comment period at Tuesday’s meeting, several neighbors asked questions and reiterated those concerns.

Sandra Free, 810 Messmer St., asked whether the city can lease property it owns to private companies, even if the conditional-use permit were approved. 

City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire said yes, and that would be up to the city council to decide.

Free also said she does not understand why the cell tower cannot be located at an existing site.

“US Cellular has three — with one permit-approved, four — locations of towers in the city,” she said. “One of those towers is about a mile from the proposal at 711 Zaffke St., and I don’t understand why you can’t just use that cellphone tower for this,” she added. 

Bruce Meyer, 809 Hillcrest Drive, wondered how the concerns about cell coverage on the north side of the city began in the first place.

“How many businesses do we have on the north side of Fort Atkinson, how many complaints have been made to either council members, or dropped calls, or to members of city government, and as a side note, if the same businesses have complained to a council member or the city, does that count as one complaint or two?” he asked.

Meyer said he stopped in some area businesses, including US Cellular, Fort Community Credit Union, Day Insurance and O’Reilly Auto Parts. He said that employees at all of those business reported having no problems with dropped calls, except FCCU during recent internet upgrades.

He, too, mentioned possible health concerns due to the cell tower, and pointed out that in 10 or 15 years, when the lease is reconsidered, none of the Plan Commission members or city staff likely will be in their current positions.

“The uncertainty that fills the room today could be even greater for the members of this future Plan Commission, so I just hope that everybody weighs the information that you have received from city government, as well as the information you have received from members of the community who reside in the area,” Meyer said.

Dennis Stark, 814 Messmer St., said via Zoom that a minimum of three sites are supposed to be sought in locating a cell tower. Bob Cloute, 1005 Madison Ave., echoed that concern.

Betty Cloute, also of 1005 Madison Ave., said that she had resided at 818 Messmer St. for many years, and today, her grandchildren live there.

When seeking signatures on petitions against the tower, she said, many people did not know about the proposal at all.

“Everybody would say ‘how come we don’t know anything about this?’ And when we talked to them, everybody kind of agrees we do need better cell phone service, but when you say ‘would you like it in your backyard,’ very, very few said ‘yes, I wouldn’t mind having it in my backyard,’” she said. 

“Understanding the fears would go a long way in understanding what’s going on,” she added.

Attending the meeting via Zoom Tuesday was Thaddeus Johnson, a project manager at GSS Inc. who represents US Cellular. He and city engineer Andy Selle answered questions from both the public and commission, as well as provided information requested following last month’s public hearing.

Among the information considered was a petition from opponents; a letter from City Attorney David Westrick, who stated that he found “no substantial evidence” that the proximity of the cell tower would endanger the health and welfare of neighbors; and new photos indicating that the monopole would not be that visible from several neighboring streets.

Selle also said that the proposal meets the city’s comprehensive plan and that city staff recommends approval based on the minimal conditions and preliminary findings already being met.

Highfield asked whether the Cloute Hill utility pole that contains an emergency warning siren and proposed monopole, located on the south side of the water tower, could be placed closer together. 

“The siren is already there. If it were moved closer, maybe it wouldn’t be such an eyesore,” she said. “As far as the cancer and radiation, they don’t know. … Nobody knows what the future’s going to bring. So we can’t base our lives on ‘what if?’” she added. 

City building inspector Brian Juarez said that the monopole has to have a 100-percent “fall radius” in relation to adjacent properties.

Commissioner Eric Schultz noted that at the January meeting, Johnson had said that this cell tower will be providing 4G cell phone coverage.

“I’d hate to get like a bait-and-switch, where they say ‘yes, it will be only 3G, 4G LTE’ and then once it’s installed, they start broadcasting 5G. I request that before they broadcast any 5G from this location, that comes back to the city for approval,” he said. 

Johnson shared maps showing current cell coverage and how that would improve with the new tower, and he said that US Cellular began looking into boosting its coverage in the wake of customer complaints, including those from the police department.

“US Cellular’s goal is to take care of the customers that they have, provide a great network and great service for those that are paying for the service,” Johnson said.

He said that US Cellular must allow for co-locating other carriers on the property and that this project is for 4G coverage.

“Obviously, understanding carriers and their needs and understanding ever-changing technology, it would be my assumption that at some point in time, this tower would likely have 5G,” he told the commission. “I don’t know what that timeframe might look like, but I can tell you that every tower that’s already existing in the area and in Wisconsin … will have, at some point, have 5G because that’s the way the technology is moving,” he said. 

He also addressed US Cellular’s search for tower sites, saying the US Cellular did the required number of searches, and exhausted all options on existing networks.

Commission member Davin Lescohier asked Johnson whether he was confident that the tower would resolve the spotty coverage at the police department.

“I’m not an engineer, but from what I’ve witnessed and seen in the past, and from what US Cellular has asked me in finding tower locations for them, I do believe this location is the best location for their needs,” Johnson responded.

City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire asked for a sworn affidavit outlining why this location was chosen and stating that other locations and co-locations were reviewed and rejected.

She also noted that Dane County requires third-party engineers/consultants to review proposed cell towers to make sure they meet local, state and federal regulations relating to radio frequency waves. Doing so in this instance would cost no more than $3,000, paid for by US Cellular.

Both ideas were added to the five conditions already in the conditional-use permit:

• That the request be in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

• That the request not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety or general welfare. 

• That the request maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land-use intensities and land-use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property.

• That the conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property. 

• That the potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts. 

Prior to the vote, Lescohier thanked the citizens who have provided input on the project, noting that he resides about a quarter-mile from the proposed tower.

“I think it’s very natural to have some concerns when something like this is proposed in and around your neighborhood. I think that the efforts concerned citizens have made to expand our discussions are commendable,” he said. 

However, Lescohier said, the American Cancer Society website states there is no strong evidence that exposure to this type of radio frequency waves cause noticeable health effects.

“It said the actual use of your cell phone subjects you to more harm than being near a tower,” he said.

Lescohier also cited the city’ attorney’s opinion of there being no “substantial evidence” of the tower having a negative effect on health, property values and other concerns,” and added that it complies with the city’s comprehensive plan.

“The site was chosen to cover some coverage gaps on the north side, including some that were identified by the police department,” he said. 

“I’m glad we’ve had a little more time to look at this, to get some more data and more information from US Cellular,” Lescohier continued, adding: “I have a stronger sense of confidence that being a quarter-mile from this tower is not really putting my family in harm’s way.”

Commission member Jill Kessenich agreed, and also thanked the citizens who brought the issues to the commission’s attention.

“I certainly have sympathy. I wouldn’t be crazy about having something like this in view of my home, but I’m afraid it’s just the tip of an ever-growing iceberg in our society that these are going to start becoming more and more ubiquitous. It’s not a good answer, but it’s the state of technology now. But I appreciate you voicing your concerns,” she said. 

Becker said that, as the only city council member on the Plan Commission, he has heard from many residents on this matter.

“I have received quite a few more calls, emails and comments on this issue than anything else in quite a while. More so than anything else since I’ve served on the Plan Commission, that’s for sure. I don’t get into the scientific concerns about cancer. I’m not a doctor or scientist and don’t pretend to be one. But just the amount of public input we received on this does weigh heavily on me,” he said. 

He added that he appreciates the fact that US Cellular is trying to boost its coverage for customers.

“At the same time, when I have this many people in the neighborhood telling me that they don’t want something, I have to give it some strong consideration,” Becker said.

Schultz also thanked the residents who contacted the commission on the tower proposal.

“I’ve appreciated the way that they’ve communicated their concerns. I’ve also tried to do as much research as I could about the concern about cancer,” he said.

In addition, Schultz said, he reached out to three Realtors in the area, and at least two said they have lost sales due to a lack of cellphone coverage, but that a nearby cell tower has not affected purchasing and pricing decisions.

On a motion by Lescohier seconded by Kessenich, the resolution was approved 5-2, with Becker and Highfield opposed.

The next step is for the city council to considers the US Cellular lease.

Also Tuesday, the Plan Commission:

• Approved a condominium plat map proposal by Country Development LLC for 1618 Premier Place at Town Trail. It effectively divides a single-family lot into two properties.

• Approved replacing the awning on the Black Hawk Senior Residence that was damaged in a windstorm in 2021.