Thursday, January 21, 2010

T-Mobile’s Site Proposals for Milton 2

Double Click To Enlarge Image.

Hopewell Road Site
Site Address: 14495 Hopewell Road, Milton, GA 30004
Existing Zoning: AG-1 (Agricultural)
Proposed Height: 154 Feet
Parcel Size: 26.4294 acres

The photo above simulates the proposed cell site as viewed from approximately 250 feet northeast of the site on the host property, looking Southwest.

T-Mobile conducted a thorough review of alternative site options and no existing cell sites or properties in commercial or industrial areas are available to meet coverage needs in this area.

Courtesy T-Mobile


Unknown said...

what about health issues for my young children???My house will be within 150 yards of this tower!
Beautiful!Not the rural landscape we thought Milton was fighting hard to preserve!!!

Anonymous said...

We feel your pain.

Anonymous said...

Oh well. Win some you lose some.

Anonymous said...

Don't think your children are in near as much danger from the tower as they are with you, speeding down the road in your auto or truck, using your cell phone.

Anonymous said...

I would rather not run the risk of having a tower less than 200 meters from my house. I've read many studies from reputable sources. There is no conclusive thoughts that no harm will come to the people who live near a tower especially in that 200 meter range. In fact there are several studies that state the opposite. I'm not against towers, they should just be put in a more appropriate area. The tower on Hopewell will be put in the front of the property. T-Mobile states they only use large parcels of land....true, but they fail to tell people it it not in the middle, it's within the first acre of the property, where it will impact the most people. I have spent hours researching cell tower effects, both on health, property values, etc. There is a negative impact even if some people do not want to admit it. The federal government gave cell tower companies basically an exemption to a lot of rules in the 1996 FC Act. They have free reign to do a whole lot of things that could be harmful to communities. The ruling was bought by lobbyists. What else is new in Washington. There are people out there that would not care if it was next to them....great, I'm not one of them. Aesthetics is the least of my worries. Oh by the way I don't speed and I don't use my cell phone while driving.

Anonymous said...

The 8:08 post was for Lisa.

Congratulations to 6:24 if you don't speed and don"t talk on cell while driving. You are an exception to the rule in Milton.

Anonymous said...

Kids are very resilient so dont worry about it.

Anonymous said...

Say that comment to a parent whose child has cancer.......idiot

Anonymous said...

6:36, In agreement with your statement, however it was not necessary to say "idiot".

Noticed several posts on this board where idiot is used. Tell me, is this a word commonly used by yankees?

Anonymous said...

I am always fascinated by people who think they are better because they are "from here".

I wonder, how long do you have to live someplace to have your vote count? 3 years, 10 years?

Why are you different/better than everyone else?

and PS: You lost the war.

Anonymous said...

To 11:09am poster: The question was is "idiot" a word commonly used by yankees.

It amuses me to read your reply. Why not, say "Yes", "No" or "Don't Know"?

Your response tells me you are "Yankee" through and through.

PS: I didn't fight in the war, did you?

Anonymous said...

6:36 I agree I should not have used the word idiot. I should have used another...but alas my post would have been removed by the administrator. Sorry if I took that comment so personally. I work with sick children and they aren't that resilient. If there is ANY possibility that that tower could cause ill effects it should not be placed in a location that exposes people or animals on a daily basis for the next 30 years with out their permission. I would feel that way whether it is in my back yard or yours.

Anonymous said...

"To generalize is to be an idiot."

William Blake

Anonymous said...

It is very sad to see children who are sick and I have passion for them and their parents. But I can assure you that the sick children you work with are not there because of cell towers and that is why I said dont worry about having one near you.

Kay Norvell said...

To the 4:16 poster. How do you know why these children are sick or where they live? It is this kind of simpleminded thinking that has allowed the FDA to manipulate the public in the past assuring us that tobacco, asbestos etc.wasn't harmful. Those of you who speak so boldly about not being concerned need to volunteer to be guinea pigs for 30 years for the FDA and live within a mile of a tower which by the way will be everyone within a few years if this reckless building is not curbed.I really cannot believe the rudeness of some of these posts concerning the welfare of others.This has nothing to do with putting yourself above someone else or who won the civil war. It has everything to do with taking away our civil rights and the ability to choose whether we want to be exposed needlessly to RF waves. There are better ways to provide coverage and T-Mobile should be forced to use them.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me it has everything to do with preserving the "rural landscape" and protecting your real estate value, be it from an eyesore or a perceived health concern.

Anonymous said...

7:26 poster:

That statement is hilarious! "Rural character" - are ya kiddin' me? Subdivisions sit on what used to be "rural character" like da plague.

Accept it - what goes around comes around and all you wannabees in the subdivisions are finally realizing what it is like to have something shoved down your throat and you have zero control over it!

ha ha!

Anonymous said...

I am the 7:26 poster and I agree with you. My point is that NIMFY Kay's real concern is about her property value, not the health impact of cell phone transmissions.

Kay Norvell said...

I find it so interesting that anonymous posters seem to think they know people's true intentions when you don't even know me as a person or any other poster. Have the courage to put a name to your insults or don't pretend you have knowledge about me or my intentions. For your information I am more concerned about health issues for everyone around the 3 cell towers not my property values.I am also mad at telecommunication companies who think they can bully municipalities into building their vertical real estate and then go laughing all the way to the bank. Some of us are actually concerned for others in our community and not stuck on old issues like development. If you are so angry at people who live in subdivisions and that type of development, you should have had the courage to stand up at council meetings and oppose it. It is the developers you should be angry with not the people who bought the houses. Show your face at a few public meetings and voice your concerns instead of hiding behind an anonymous statement on a blog. And please stop pretending you know my intentions for my opposition. You don't.

Tim Enloe said...


Regardless of whether you agree with a comment or not, Kay Norvell is right - a comment holds more weight when you attach your name to it.

Tim Enloe
770 653 0552

Anonymous said...

My perception about Kay Norvell's intentions are based on her video interview where she mentions health concerns only in passing, but says:

"I don't want to look out on that, that's gonna be ugly, my property values will go down."

I understand why Ms. Norvell is opposed to the tower (and I sympathize) but that is one of the risks of buying property next to 30 acres of undeveloped land.

I don't live near the proposed tower, but I do use a cell phone and I support the rights of property owners (like Seven Gables) to use their land as permitted under local zoning laws.

Ms. Norvell invited criticism by referring to her detractors as "simpleminded" thinkers and by attacking the telecom companies (which provide a legal and valuable service) and the FDA (which does not regulate cell phones and certainly has not manipulated the public about tobacco and asbestos.)

I admire Kay Norvell for putting her name out there - but when she uses this blog as a platform to advance her position, she should expect readers to examine her intentions and her arguments.

Anonymous said...

Norvell is another Cauley.