Some residents of Baytown Township are upset over a proposal to build a cell phone tower on property the township owns, arguing that it’s unsafe, unnecessary and would lower property values.

Township officials are reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for a 135-foot-tall Verizon cell phone tower on 1.6 acres of township land near the intersection of 40th Street North and Northbrook Boulevard North. The wooded land was deeded in 1987 to the township by the late Tom Gerson; no restrictions were placed on the property, township officials say.

In addition to reviewing the conditional-use application, the township board is considering changing the township’s cell tower ordinance, which Town Board Chairwoman Nicole Dahl says is outdated.

The proposed updates would remove the minimum 5-acre lot size requirement for new cellular towers in residential districts. It also would remove the minimum 500-foot separation from residential dwellings and the one-mile spacing requirement between towers, according to a staff report.

The fixed spacing and minimum-lot size requirements would be replaced with “performance-based standards tied to tower height, engineered fall-zone requirements, co-location feasibility, and demonstrated service need,” the report states. “This review is prompted by increased demand for reliable wireless service, public safety considerations, and changes in wireless industry best practices since the ordinance was initially adopted.”

The ordinance is one of several being updated, including others dealing with noise, second driveways, overnight parking, winter parking and firearms/archery discharge, according to Dahl.

Neighborhood concerns

Residents who live near the site are concerned about changing township ordinances “seemingly to fit the (cell phone tower) application and for no other apparent reason,” said Kevin Harvey, who is helping spearhead an effort to stop the tower.

Harvey said he is particularly concerned about the health risks associated with 5G cellular service, since the tower will be located as close as 350 feet from some of the residences.

“They keep saying, ‘Oh, it’s about the same amount of radiation as a microwave oven,’ but, I mean, your microwave oven isn’t on 24 hours a day,” he said. “It’s on for, like, two minutes out of the day, you know what I mean?”

Donae Gustafson, who lives on a 5-acre hobby farm whose property line is 500 feet east of the proposed site, said she is worried about her health – and the health of her two horses and two donkeys.

Another major concern: impacts on property values. The American Association of Realtors estimates up to 30 percent decrease in property value for homes located in close proximity to a cell tower, Gustafson said, adding that she recently talked to a Realtor who said a cell phone tower would lower the value of her property and make it more difficult to sell her property in the future.

In addition to the tower, the proposal includes a road, a maintenance building and a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the site.

“We’re surrounded by farm fields,” Gustafson said. “This would be an eyesore and negatively impact the beautiful rural landscape.”

More than 150 township residents have signed a petition stating their objection to the proposed tower, and dozens of residents attended the Feb. 2 board meeting to voice their concerns, Harvey said.

“Overwhelmingly Baytown Township residents do not want a cell tower in our residential area, but it seems that the township board is in favor of it, leaving residents wondering what representation we really have,” he said. “Nobody wants it.”

Community discussion

The township board will hold a community discussion at 6:30 p.m. Monday to listen to the residents’ concerns, Dahl said, noting no decision has yet been reached on either the ordinance change or CUP application.

“We want to listen and make sure that we’re understanding the perspective of the residents,” Dahl said. “It may be that we don’t share the same view, or we’re using different data sets, but we want to make sure that we’re listening because we might not have all the information. We represent the community, and we want to make sure that we’re making the best decision for all 2,200-plus residents of Baytown.”

Related Articles

Maintenance barge on the Mississippi River is partially submerged

Newspaper delivery may be delayed on Friday

St. Paul snow emergency declared. Plowing began at 9 p.m. Thursday

A look at the Twin Cities’ largest snowfall of the season

How a defendant in Minnesota went free because of Justice Department turmoil

The township would be paid $1,250 a month for the use of the land with two carriers located on the tower, Dahl said. For each additional carrier, the township gets an extra $200 a month; the limit is four carriers, she said.

“It’s not a life-changing amount, but it’s helpful. Everything’s helpful,” she said. “Our annual property-tax increase year on year the last couple of years has been about $60,000, so it’s about a third of what our tax increase is. … I’m not suggesting that’s the only reason we would do it, I just want to give the perspective of what it means to the township.”

As for health concerns, the Federal Communications Commission regulates radiofrequency emissions from cell phone towers, setting exposure guidelines to protect the public, Dahl said.

“People might say, ‘Well, any emission is bad,’” she said. “That’s true. But again, if we’re balancing what the community need is … what I believe is a concern and what you believe is a concern might be different.”

‘A question of where’

If the tower isn’t built on township land, Verizon officials have told township officials they would find another nearby site.

“We have other residents that have already come forward saying, ‘I will take that contract,’” she said. “The likelihood a tower will go in is very, very high. It’s a question of where. This (location) gives us the ability to have some control.”

Township officials signed a lease in December for the cell phone tower on the township-owned land – but that lease is contingent on a conditional-use permit being approved, Dahl said.

“Just because we signed a lease doesn’t mean we have a preconceived notion that it’s already happening,” she said. “We still have to follow the process.”

The lease permits up to 49 years of use of the land. Verizon has four years to construct the tower, followed by renewable five-year terms.

Dahl said many township residents have coverage issues and “have complained for some time about dropped calls.”

“Some residents have voiced that there’s a safety issue,” she said. “If you are in your yard, and there’s a problem, and you don’t have Wi-Fi, and you need to contact somebody, and you don’t have coverage, that’s a problem. I’m not suggesting that’s like a daily occurrence, but we’re trying to take everybody’s perspective into account.”

Dahl said the proposed tower location is in an area of land that dips down, mostly surrounded by pine trees. She said Verizon would protect the trees, so most of the tower would be hidden.

The town board plans to vote on the conditional-use permit and the ordinance change at its March 2 meeting.

Harvey said the hopes the board will listen to the residents. “The board is there to represent us, and overwhelmingly, nobody wants it,” he said. “My feeling is that they should deny it, but I don’t know that they will.”

Gustafson said she is concerned that people in the township don’t know about the proposed tower. Only people who live near the site received official notification from the township about the public hearing, she said.

Related Articles

Forest Lake school board, deadlocked 3-3, reopens search for new board member

Afton man charged with threats after St. Thomas lockdown

Forest Lake parts ways with city administrator after closed session

Lake Alice to remain empty until fall 2027 as repair plan takes shape

Medical examiner rules September death of 20-month-old Woodbury boy a homicide

“We’re really shocked that this is being pushed through,” she said. “Our previous township representatives would have had the public weigh in. They wouldn’t make all these decisions, which to us feel duplicitous because they’re being done behind our backs.”

Dahl said notices were mailed to the 20 households within 1/4 mile of the site, following standard practice. A notice also was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and documents about the proposal are posted on the townships website, she said. Township residents are encouraged to sign up for emails that are sent out prior to every board meeting; the email includes the agenda and link to the website where all documents are available, she said.

“Some of the residents have said they were not aware of the monthly email,” Dahl said. “This is the challenge. I completely understand we are all busy. We are doing our best to communicate, but we can’t force people to read communicated info.”