The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals will hear more comments later this month about a proposal to install a Verizon cell tower on the east side of Lick Creek Road.

The proposed tower, which would be 199 feet tall and take up approximately 10,000 square feet, was explained by attorney Daniel Coots. During the May BZA meeting, Coots said that the area was chosen due to its ideal height and location and that the tower would significantly improve county communications. In addition to bolstering the overall Brown County wireless network, Coots said the tower would offload traffic from preexisting towers in the area.

“There would be better overall coverage, meaning less dropped calls, and improved data usage,” Coots said. “There would also be improved 911 and emergency response times.”

Coots and a Verizon Wireless location expert reassured the board that the tower would meet all federal requirements and was not in violation of any BZA regulations. The Verizon employee also said that no preexisting towers were a viable option for Verizon to convert and that this location is more ideal.

However, some locals suspected this was a way for the communications company to save money. Local real estate broker David Pierce said that while this may be the cheapest option for Verizon, it is certainly not their only one.

“People cannot change their home’s location, but Verizon can change their tower’s location,” he said.

Greg Dawe lives immediately north of the proposed tower area. His house is surrounded by trees and open meadows, which he said was a major factor for him in choosing the home just last year. He voiced concerns that if the petition were to pass, Verizon would mow down the area.

“This is Brown County,” Dawe said. “I’m here to look at green trees, not red and white iron. “I’m not going to be able to smile at my neighbors if this goes up.”

Margaret Dolinsky has lived in Indiana all of her life, and told the board that she moved to Brown County with plans to retire here. She found a home with a great view from her porch, she said, but is concerned that her house is a mere 200 feet from the proposed tower location. Her one-story house would be dwarfed by the tower’s 20 stories she said.

“We all want internet access,” she said. “But this tower will impact our enjoyment, our health and our property.”

Dolinsky and Dawe both told the board that if the tower were to be constructed, their property values would plummet. Carpenter Realtors broker associate Michelle Sebastian joined the call to confirm that the Dawe’s property value would sink, and Dolinsky said she had been told by another agent that her property’s value would drop somewhere between a third and a half.

Those statements contradicted the BZA staff report, which stated that no evidence showing material and permanent damage to these properties was found.

Other attendees saw flaws in the original petition filed by Coots. Bloomington attorney Mike Carmin said that the petition failed to provide any substantial evidence to support its claims that property would not be harmed, but rather it operates on assumption. “Strictly as a matter of law, this petition cannot be approved,” he told the board.

Other meeting attendees asked the board to show empathy and imagine themselves in this scenario.

“These people spent painstaking time to find the house that properly fits their needs,” Brown County resident Steven Brown said. “Put yourself in their shoes to imagine looking out the back door to that monstrosity.”

Many had concerns that Verizon wasn’t being transparent with its intentions and wasn’t answering questions. The proposed tower would be equipped with three other centerlines capable of adding other carriers, and Brown County local David Rice said he was concerned about companies using 5G in the area. Rice’s daughter has autism and sensory issues, and he asked the board if the tower could potentially buzz or cause issues for her.

“There is such a thing as environmental pollution,” Brown said. “I used to be an employee of Verizon, actually installing cell towers, believe it or not. These things impact communities.”

Others questioned whether the tower was even necessary. Brown County local Holly Challis said that she is a Verizon customer who lives in the area and she has no problems with cellular connectivity. Dolinsky, also a Verizon customer, cited her exemplary Zoom connection as a reason why the tower was unnecessary, while Dawe said the tower was archaic technology.

Challis moved to Brown County after retiring, she told the board. She chose the area to be surrounded by trees and away from large structures and buildings. “This would ruin everything that I have worked for my entire life,” she said.

After wrapping up public comments on the petition, petitioner Coots suggested that the board table this discussion until the BZA’s next meeting so that he could go over local concerns with Verizon. The board agreed. The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 24.

“This decision to allow a cell tower within 200 feet of a home would set that as a precedent,” Pierce said — “a precedent that tells communications companies that it is OK to keep building closer to these homes.”