At its Oct. 22 meeting, Lakeway City Council, in cooperation with KGI Wireless, decided to withdraw its application for a permit to construct a 190-foot cellular tower at 3303 Serene Hills Drive, next to Serene Hills Elementary School.
The overview
An independent study conducted by City Manager Joseph Molis investigated viability for the cell tower site, which is a city-owned property selected for the project by KGI Wireless. Molis’ study showed that cell coverage in the surrounding area was lacking and that a new cellular tower in this location would likely be the most viable option to improve the area’s cell reception.
Though the study was completed with some assistance from KGI Wireless, Molis explained that he gathered his own information from a crowd-sourced software package, www.cellmapper.net, that allows users to assess cell reception issues in a given region. He included graphs in his presentation from that software that reflected reception issues in Lakeway.
City staff also independently identified problem areas with cell reception in the city through internal polling, which lined up with what KGI Wireless identified as problem areas within the city.
Though Molis said the study showed a need for improved cell coverage in the area, many residents attended the meeting in order to protest the proposed cell tower and dispute the city’s need for it.
The background
KGI first reached out to the Building and Development Services department in Lakeway, asking about placing a cell tower on city property, in late April. In May, city staff met with KGI Wireless to discuss what requirements must be met to build a cell tower on city property.
In July, KGI applied for the necessary special use permit required to build the proposed cell tower. ZAPCO recommended approval of this request in September, and City Council first addressed the request later that month at their Sept. 16 council meeting.
The council recommended further research be done regarding the need for a cell tower and potential locations where a tower could be placed, leading to Molis’ independent study.
The discussion
Concerns voiced by residents at the meeting included safety of nearby residents and schoolchildren, as well as decreasing property values that they claim could be caused by the proposed placement of the cell tower.
Several residents also said that poor cell reception was not currently a major issue for residents and that this proposed cell tower was not in the best interest of the city.
“I can validate the issues with property value because I’ve sold real estate in our area for the last 24 years,” said Gregg Klar, resident and local real estate agent. “Any time I’m showing property to a potential buyer and they see power lines, large transmission towers—it’s a real hesitation. So I can validate that there is a problem with property value when you put something like this up.”
Resident Tom Favara voiced concerns that the cell tower would be built too close to the nearby school and that children may be drawn to play on the structure.
“Would it not be reasonable to build at a location that’s more suitable, far away from young children?” Favara asked. “I think the children will try and play on it. I think they could get hurt. I’m concerned about that.”
The bottom line
After holding a private executive session to discuss the matter, the council returned to discuss their findings publicly. Council member Jennifer Szimanski said that although the need for improved cell reception was apparent, she was in favor of deferring to resident’s requests.
“I do see a lot of residents here who are opposed to the tower,” Szimanski said. “My kids go to the school [at Serene Hills Elementary]; I know that there is a need for the tower. I live in one of the areas where it’s difficult to work from home; there’s not good service. But again, like I said last meeting, I’m here to represent my constituents, and no one is here asking for service.”
Council member Kelly Brynteson shared Szimanski’s perspective.
“I made a promise during election season to listen to my constituents. I will say I have constituents on both sides—some are for, some are against,” Brynteson said. “I have the majority that are against this because of their kids. I’m a mother of two elementary age kids, and I have always voted on the side of caution.”
Mayor Thomas Kilgore acknowledged residents’ concerns while complying with the wishes of the council.
“We have had consultation with our attorney about the right way to proceed,” Kilgore said. “I think we have a definitive majority of council that believes that this is not the right location and right time for this.”
Ultimately, the council voted 6-1 to withdraw the application for the cell tower's permit.
