Plans for an 80-foot monopole communication tower off North Cutting Avenue were unanimously rejected this week by the Jennings City Council based on the tower’s proposed location.

New Cingular Wireless, doing business as AT&T Mobility, was seeking to rezone property at 1737 North Cutting Avenue from residential to commercial to allow for the construction of a cell tower in a residential area. The property is owned by Mitchell and Virginia Sonnier and Steven Lee.

The city has denied similar requests to rezone the property for the tower in the past after residents and local pilots voiced safety concerns for height of the tower and the proposed location.

“This item was on the council’s agenda many months ago in regards to a cell tower location,” Mayor Henry Guinn said, noting that the initial permit request was for a cell tower that exceeded the height recommendations of the Jennings Airport. “So we denied a permit on that basis.”

There was a second attempt to have the property rezoned with a much lower tower, he said. That request was also denied due to concerns of “spot zoning” and what is suitable for residential and commercial areas.

Attorney Laura Carlisle, who represents AT&T, said the current application is to rezone the property from A-2 to C-2 which is necessary to allow for the construction of an 80-foot monopole with a five-foot lightning rod at the location.

The tower is needed to improve coverage and increase capacity of AT&T. Without the tower, the capacity will only get worse, Carlisle said.

“The 80-feet is the minimum height that AT&T can have to meet those capacities needs,” she said.

The tower would also allow for two additional carriers, she said.

The tower was initially proposed as a 145-feet in 2021 as a building permit because the city’s ordinance does not address telecommunication towers or prohibit them in residential areas.

“We were instructed by the jurisdiction to reapply to rezone the property as a C-2, which is what we did,” Carlisle said. “That was voted down due to the height and the proximity to the airport, so we resubmitted at 80-feet with the current application.”

The city’s zoning commission approved the application, but it was never taken up by the city council because of concerns from the airport and the Mosquito Abatement Authority, which have been addressed, Carlisle said.

Guinn said the argument is does it have to be commercial. He believes it needs to be rezoned as commercial.

After previous attempts to approve the tower were denied, a lawsuit was filed against the city which has resulted in a federal judge ordering the city to make a decision on the pending application, Carlisle said.

“I think it is fixable, because nobody is moving away from cell phones, but at the same time we all love our home and don’t want the next door to become commercial just because a resident enters into a lease agreement and it needs to get rezoned,” Guinn said.

“Our belief is because the ordinance does not require a specific zoning, that you don’t actually have to rezone the property as long as you issue a building permit,” Carlisle said.

However, Carlisle said if the city chooses to rezone the property, the company is seeking a commercial designation to allow for construction of the tower.

“I do understand there are some concerns with commercialization, but to that extent you can leave it at A-2 (residential) and still allow for the tower,” she said.

She said there are significant other commercial properties in the area.

Guinn said a lot of the processes and steps to avoid getting to court and back in front of the council could have been avoided.

“I think there was a slight assumption that because the code was silent to cellular communication, that the council would remain silent,” Guinn said. “I think the fear is the creation of spot zones. You could open Pandora’s box if you start going throughout the city of Jennings and each resident enters into a contract with a cellular company or provider and next thing you know you have cell towers popping up all over the place.”

He said the city desperately needs a communications ordinance to dictate where cell towers can be placed and force providers to use existing locations. He urged AT&T to consider alternate locations including other available commercial properties in the city.

Carlisle said the company had explored other options, including a commercial property just to the west of the current proposed location, but most were eliminated because the property owners were not open to leasing the property.

“Commercial properties were absolutely considered,” she said. “We certainly did not focus on residential properties.”

Councilman Clifton Lejeune, who represents the district where the tower is proposed, said he has spoken with residents in the neighborhood who are opposed to the plan. Many of those are opposed to the “cosmetic appearance” of the tower, while others have expressed concerns for potential health risks with the integration of 5G technology.

“I walked the neighborhood and spoke with the families and the vast majority were opposed to rezoning and did not want a tower in that neighborhood,” Lejeune said. “As a representative of that community I am opposed to it based on that.”

Lejeune argued the project would be better placed in another location away from residences.

Councilman Stevie Van Hook said the city is not trying to prohibit cell towers, but that the proposed location is in a residential neighborhood “where people do not want it.” He urged the city and AT&T to work together to give the citizens of Jennings and those passing through good cell phone coverage.

Councilman Johnny Armentor also urged the company to explore other possible locations for a cell tower in a safer area.

“In 2012-2013 another company came in and wanted to put another tower up, but at that time the mosquito board denied it for the simple reason that we had a tower and the lights were not working  and the pilot crashed, his wing caught the tower,” he said. “That’s why as long as I have been on the council I have been very adamant about where tower’s are located.”

Armentor said he has received a number of calls from people opposing the tower site and has offered attorneys from AT&T to meet with those people.