Friday, Oct. 21, 2016    Login | Register        

Latest PTC celltower rules up for study Monday

The latest revision of Peachtree City’s new celltower ordinance will be discussed at Monday night’s meeting of the planning commission.

One of the newest tweaks will allow cellphone towers to be built on land zoned general commercial or office industrial as long as the lot is at least five acres and the fire marshal must review and approve the location of the support structure and access path to the structure to make sure emergency access is adequate.

New celltowers on land zoned GC or OI will be allowed as a conditional use, meaning the city can also place other conditions upon the approval of said usage.

Remaining in the ordinance is controversial language that will allow celltowers to be built in city parks and recreation areas as long as the tower setback and other regulations are met. The ordinance does not require the city to lease any space to a celltower company, and proponents of the measure have argued that the city has more control over a celltower when it is the property owner than if the celltower strikes a lease with a private property owner.

The commission meets at 7 p.m. at City Hall; the meetings are always open to the public.

Among other minor changes to the ordinance, the city has changed the minimum side and rear setback to an amount equal to 50 percent of the height of the tower. The setback also must be at least 75 feet.

Also, the setback for towers abutting arterial roads will be set at 200 feet under the new ordinance, with that number dropping to 100 feet if the tower does not abut an arterial road.

New towers must also be set back at least 250 feet from any adjoining parcel that is used for a residence, school or place of worship. This figure has remained unchanged in the proposed ordinance.

Another new change to the ordinance is the requirement for telecommunications companies to post a $20,000 cash bond with the city to facilitate the removal of the towers should they become abandoned by their owner.

The city also will have the power to declare a celltower “abandoned” if it is not operated for a period of 90 consecutive days. Once the city sends that notice to the celltower owner, the owner will have 30 days to remove the tower.



PTC Observer's picture

Any council member who votes for a cell tower in a public park should be driven from office by the voters.

The only conclusion I can make is that by keeping parks in the planned ordinance they intend to approve cell towers in parks, otherwise it wouldn't be in there.

I miss the point of what the problem is in a park. They are going to toppel over in a storm & hit someone that hasn't sought shelter? Are they ugly & will take away from the bucolic soccer game? Does anyone NOT go to the park behind city hall & the library because of the tower? I don't recall the last 1 that fell & I have seen a "pine tree" outside of Las Vegas. Personally I want my cell phone to work & plan to put more demand on the system in the future.

PTC Observer's picture

You have gone to the wrong cell tower because it's not a cell tower. It's a communications tower for the city.

Here's the way it works, a 180 tower is put in the middle of a park with a security fence around it. It has transmission equipment at its base and it pretty much ruins the view within the park. The equipment includes standby diesel generators that kick in if the power is disrupted. If we had parks that were hundreds of acres with lot of trees and large setbacks this might not be a big problem. But the parks in PTC are generally small, all that are under consideration are small; Blue Smoke (close to the tennis courts), Braelinn Sports complex (between two baseball fields), and one other that I can't remember.

Parks are built for enjoyment of the citizens and children. It is part of the reason that many of us chose PTC. Why would we want a tower in the middle of a park? There is an outside chance that microwaves are not too good for kids, why should we take that chance when we simply don't have to? Parks are used for emergency evacuation by helicopters, towers and helicopters don't mix. Finally, the homes around parks have a certain level of value because of their proximity. I am sure looking out your window to see a cell tower would take away from the value of surrounding property.

Let’s look at this rationally, parks were not planned to have commercial sites implanted into them. They were planned for relaxing and recreating to take us away from reminders of our daily toils. When the city was founded it was founded on the principle that green space and parks would add to the value of our lives. Is a cell tower consistent with this vision? I think not and any council member that votes for one in a city park should be thrown out of office simply because they don’t understand that vision for our community.

Let them find commercial real estate to put towers on, after all it is a commercial enterprise activity.


Kevin....this all about the fact that you live next to one of the parks!
You and Mary have been screaming about this for over a year trying to drag the other residents in...under the pretense that no towers should go into any park..Be honest, its about the park next to you (Blue Smoke) and in Mary's case the one next to her Braelinn)..those are the only two you mention in your tirate here!!! I appreciate that you are trying to protect your home value but enough with the scare tactics about microwaves and kids.
Also, you already know that Blue Smoke is not an "approved" helicopter area...but try to get a little the proposal regarding setbacks and measure your park..
Enough already. Stop yelling at those who do not agree with you and stop threatening council....

PTC Observer's picture

I have no idea who Kevin and Mary are but I would like to meet them.

Did I say "approved" for helicopter use? I said they are used because they have been used. Give me some data on the microwave issue and I will be glad to look at it. My guess is that you thoroughly researched this issue with regards to children before your crack team of planners wrote the ordinance. Bet you can't find any data pal because there isn't any. Nonetheless, why should we gamble with our children? Finally, you missed my point entirely public parks should not be used for commercial purposes. That's it. Parks are not a commercial endeavor.

Larry, I appreciate the fact that you happen to know the ordinance better than I, and I know that it is unlikely that council would be brazen enough to approve it. Yes, I have read the ordinance. I am simply saying that any council member that votes for a cell tower in a public park should be thrown out of office for the reasons that I stated earlier. I would happen to put some considerable money behind that effort. That's my right as a citizen, isn't it?

Why don't you run for Mayor? You seem to be well qualified. You can be the first to vote for cell towers in public parks. Thanks for the Walgreens monolith.

Start there on cell tower danger.....

As for Walgreens, I am available any time to discuss that with you, but first do the research and get the facts on it before pointing fingers.
Once you have done that, e-mail me at, then let's sit down and discuss but after you do the research (Kevin) and .... measure your park.

As for a run for mayor....never!

But you should feel strongly on many for it!

PTC Observer's picture

Thanks I will look at these data, but I am not convinced that long term studies have been done with regard to children exposure to microwave. I can't find any. I am certain that the carriers will not do this willingly.

Look, I have nothing against you personally. I simply can't understand why planning for the future is so difficult. With regard to the Walgreens debacle - the planners certainly had the opportunity to put size restrictions on future buildings on that site at some point in time.

Whether you had that opportunity or not is not known to me.

Never say never.

A lot of parks have commercial endeavors! Braves, Falcons, Piedmont, Hot dog stands, Stone Mountain, Dollywood, Smokey Mountains, Yellowstone, Pine Mountain, Lake Lanier, on and on!

Kevin and Mary, as you asked, must be movie stars!

PTC Observer's picture

Do you know the difference in public and private?

I don't even know why I am responding to this ..... you are hopeless.

Piedmont Park is public! Rock bands sell there.

The Sports complexes (Falcons,. Braves) in Atlanta are owned by Atlanta, PUBLICLY OWNED.

Are you saying that nothing is sold at public parks?

If PTC wanted to sell eggs at the ball parks here, they could.

Me thinks Mr. Sussberg works for AT&T. If they're so safe he should put one in his yard.

NUK_1's picture

Larry thinks you're Kevin Madden, PTC resident who lives right next to one of the parks that would be affected, past Dem candidate and head of the FC Democratic Party. Brave man :) I know Kevin and he is a pretty stand-up guy, so obviously Larry is mistaken about you being him, lol.

Sorry for the joke there, but after you spent yesterday accusing Spyglass and I(or our families..nice) of likely having legal troubles due to pot and having no principles, you need to lighten up some.

PTC Observer's picture

are of course correct on this, I should lighten up here given the forum.

I may just "bump" into Mr. Madden one of these days to find out about his stand on cell towers.

As for you and Spyglass, I will see you in the polls, voting for or against Larry who will be running for mayor.

the industrial areas where they are not an eyesore that might be one thing-they do not belong in our parks. Parks are supposed to be attractive green areas where we and our children can enjoy them. There is nothing restful or pretty about a tower in the middle, the end or anywhere in a park. We do not know for sure just what does happen with these towers and to me it is not worth the risk nor the raping of our green space---and I do not live near any of the parks, do not have children and my name is not Mary.

It seems that a few don't want cell towers to ruin the views in PTC.
If the quadrihexadecazillion signals now going through our air from hundreds of thousands of sources, including the satellites, radio, local TV, cops, etc., then a few phone ones added won't put us over the top!

It is good income for the city. Most industrial areas are too low, too noisy, in flood plains, and land is very expensive!

I'll take one in my yard---we are high---for $20,000 per year rent!
Providing my services are free (TV, phone, cell) and I can cut off anyone who disagree with me!

the Council doesn't address this. Probably because they are too busy bickering about a 3-2 vote.

Ad space area 4 internal