Lawton City Council directs removal of cellphone tower in northwest Lawton neighborhood

A cellphone tower placed in a northwest Lawton neighborhood must be moved — but City Council members didn’t give a reason.

The decision to revoke a small cell wireless facility permit is part of an on-going progress tied to 26 sites that U.S. Cellular was permitted to place in Lawton neighborhoods after four separate actions by the City Council between 2021 and June 2023. Placement comes under an ordinance the council enacted in late 2021 to guide placement of those cell facilities, with specific criteria setting height limits and distances that towers must be placed from water, sewer and arterials, and exactly where they can be placed.

Some placements have been criticized by residents who said they weren’t notified about what was coming before placement began earlier this year, and by those who say some of the towers were not set in the locations specified in their permits. Connie Wood used both arguments to oppose location of the tower placed adjacent to her property at 6432 Arrowhead Drive. A resident also has challenged the placement of a pole at 7990 Micklegate Boulevard.

“This is a huge steel pole,” Wood said of a pole that she also said is not within city regulations and is significantly larger than other utility poles in the neighborhood. “It means a lot to us. It affects our property.”

Wood said the tower placed on the north side of her house also is in front of her neighbor’s house, adding that placement is affecting plans she has to add parking for an RV. She repeated a request she had made at a previous council meeting: tell U.S. Cellular to move the pole to a nearby location: Great Plains Park north of her house, or an open lot about 150 feet away from the pole’s current location.

That isn’t feasible, said Erin Waitz, network zoning and build compliance manager for U.S. Cellular, who explained company officials conducted analysis and worked with City of Lawton staff to find the best locations for towers. She said the goal was to locate towers at sites that support high traffic areas, adding “it is critical” the company locate those towers close to high usage areas to ensure connectivity.

That’s why the company can’t simply move to new locations, Waitz said, adding U.S. Cellular also worked with city staff to ensure full compliance with the city code that specifies towers must be placed in public easements — and there aren’t any in the park or open field that have been suggested as alternates.

“We did everything we could,” Waitz said.

Public Utilities Director Rusty Whisenhunt, who reviewed the data before permits were recommended for each location, said he was specific in his details. For example, any pole located in a front yard was rejected, he said, adding the goal was placing poles as far away from the front of houses as possible. Cell poles also had to match utility poles already in the neighborhood, which is why some are steel, some are wood and some are composite.

While council members wanted to know if Wood was correct about the facilities devaluing property, Waitz said many studies have proven the opposite, finding that high speed connectivity “is a plus” for a neighborhood.

But Ward 6 Councilman Bob Weger asked why it wasn’t possible to move the tower 150 feet away from that site. Weger was among three council members who rejected the first motion put on the council floor to accept the staff recommendation to let the tower remain in place. Weger, Ward 5 Councilman Allan Hampton and Ward 7 Councilwoman Sherene L. Williams then voted yes on a motion to revoke the Arrowhead Drive permit, action that was rejected by Ward 4 Councilman George Gill and Ward 1 Councilwoman Mary Ann Hankins.

That simple majority vote of the five council members present at Tuesday’s session was questioned by Mayor Stan Booker, but city attorneys said a simple majority was all that was needed in this instance (ordinances must be passed by at least five affirmative council votes). However, the vote is close enough that any of the three council members that were not at Tuesday’s meeting when the vote was taken — Ward 8 Councilman Randy Warren, Ward 3 Councilwoman Linda Chapman or Ward 2 Councilman Kelly Harris — can bring the issue back to the council floor.

When Waitz asked about the reason for the permit revocation, city officials said the council has the right under the code to revoke on any grounds after giving 90 days notice. That is the action taken Tuesday.