Milton council hears appeal on cell tower site plan

Milton Town Council is weighing whether to overturn preliminary site-plan approval of Verizon’s proposed 140-foot cellphone tower on Front Street.

A decision on the appeal by Milton resident Allen Benson will be made at council’s 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 23 meeting at Milton library.

At a March 9 appeal hearing, Benson made two arguments for why he believes the planning and zoning commission erred in granting the preliminary site-plan approval.

First, he said, planning and zoning did not consider adverse impacts to neighboring properties in granting approval. Second, town code states that no new public utility could be constructed in a flood zone area, which that portion of Front Street is.

“The issue that has been raised multiple times is for increased flooding on Front Street by building this cell tower on a 50-by-50 foot pad in a designated flood zone. The basis of this appeal is that planning and zoning, contrary to town code requirements, never really considered the impact on the adjacent neighborhood,” Benson said. 

The proposed Verizon tower has been controversial from the start, mainly due to its location, which would be at the town’s current public works yard at 210 Front St. Verizon has said that the location and height of the tower will give the best cellphone coverage for Verizon customers in Milton. Opponents, however, say the tower would be an eyesore in a part of town that frequently floods and is proposed as a potential town gateway in Milton’s comprehensive development plan, especially after the current wastewater treatment plant is demolished and removed once Artesian’s new plant on Route 30 is up and running. 

Because the land is zoned R-1 residential, Verizon had to get a special-use permit from planning and zoning. That permit was granted, and the decision was appealed to town council in August. 

In its ruling, council stated that the comprehensive plan imagines what could be at that site but also calls for improved infrastructure services, which the tower would provide, and that the planners put in a condition that stated plans for the tower must comply with all state and federal rules and regulations. Council members stated at that time that issues with the floodplain would be addressed in the site-plan review process. 

The planners approved preliminary site plans in November but attached several conditions that must be met before final approval, including a geotechnical analysis of the site in both wet and dry conditions, permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a sequence of construction, no pile-driving allowed, an analysis of runoff and flooding, vibration monitoring, and a promise that Verizon will maintain plantings around the site. 

Benson said the planners did not consider the effect on streets surrounding the tower, such as Collins and Walnut streets, and whether they would be able to handle the increased traffic the tower would bring. He said the planners and city officials did not duly consider an alternative to building a tower, such as putting an antenna on an existing water tower. 

“This project cannot move forward,” Benson said.

Presenting on behalf of planning and zoning, Town Solicitor Seth Thompson said the commission did consider the health, safety and welfare of the community in making its decision. He said the series of conditions put on the approval were meant to address the flooding issue, and that Verizon has indicated the platform where the tower would be placed is above the floodplain. Thompson said the commission extensively questioned Verizon representative John Tracey on the flooding issue around Front Street, demonstrating that those concerns were addressed prior to the commission granting preliminary site-plan approval. Finally, he said Verizon still needs approval from state agencies before final site-plan approval.

Tracey presented on behalf of Verizon and reiterated that the commission addressed concerns about flooding in its conditions for preliminary site-plan approval. He said the commission, by a 6-1 vote, found the layout of the site to be acceptable and asked the council to sustain the commission’s approval of the preliminary site plan. 

“The planning commission carefully weighed the testimony of those in front of it,” Tracey said. “The planning commission acted in accordance with the law in an orderly and logical fashion.”

Recusals and public comment

For this appeal hearing, council only had four members take part, after three – Councilwoman Randi Meredith, and councilmen John Collier and Sam Garde – recused themselves. Prior to the hearing, Collier announced that he was recusing because of prior statements on the case made in a public record. Meredith and Garde recused prior to the meeting. While council members do not have to publicly state a reason for recusing, Meredith said after the meeting that she was not able to attend due to a death in the family. 

Benson, and Barry Goodinson of 313 Mill St., asked Mayor Ted Kanakos to recuse himself because of a land-lease agreement he had signed with Verizon in 2019. Kanakos refused to do so; attorney Glenn Mandalas, representing town council because Thompson, the town solicitor, was representing the planning and zoning commission, told Goodinson he could take his complaint to the Delaware Public Integrity Commission for review. Goodinson had previously filed an appeal of planning and zoning’s decision to grant a special permitted use to Verizon for the tower.

Public comment was exclusively in opposition to the tower. 

Agnes Steele, 209 Collins St., asked for the matter to be remanded back to the planning commission for reconsideration. 

Ginny Weeks, 119 Clifton St., said nowhere in town code is it permitted to build a 140-foot cell tower.

The comment period became testy after Goodinson asked Kanakos to recuse himself; Goodinson said Kanakos had misled people about the reasons why the tower is being placed on Front Street. Steele then got back on the microphone and said Kanakos was being sarcastic and seemingly was frustrated with people voicing their concerns. Kanakos said this was the first time in six years as mayor that he had been personally attacked at a meeting. 

Public comment was then closed, and Benson, Thompson and Tracey were allowed to make closing statements, reiterating their arguments. Town council elected to postpone a vote on the case so it can review all the evidence. Council has several options it can pursue toward its expected March 23 decision: It can deny Benson’s appeal and uphold the commission’s decision; it can overturn the commission’s decision, or it can remand the matter back to planning and zoning for further review. Council has 60 days to release a written decision on the appeal.