Due diligence wasn't done on proposed cell phone tower

To the editor:

Whether I'm a "Good Ole Boy" or a "Bad Ole Boy," I must respond to your editorial.

First, the called planning meeting public comment period is open to anyone with or without opinion on the matter brought before the Blytheville Planning Commission, for or against the motion at hand. The said AT&T representative was on time with only three proof of notices of surrounding property owners. I still have questions about this, as there are several homes (zoned R-1) across the street from the address of notice which was 344 Lockard. Not the rear, not the side, but 344 Lockard.

I has been standard practice for years by the Planning Commission to require notice to be given to all locations around the property in question, even across streets and ally ways. In addition, the AT&T representative did not have the required paperwork in hand, i.e. a footprint or plat or drawing of the site work which is required of everyone. A required plat was given to the commission members by me, that's what a "Good Ole Boy" will do. Actually that part of Lockard Street in front of 344 Lockard and for some reason the street itself, down to the railroad, is zoned R-1. No notice was given to the R-1 people. I tried for some time to point out to the commission that American Tower was forced by federal law to advise the public of the forthcoming tower. The notice ran for several weeks in the newspaper. However, the notice is incorrect as the land is not zoned as I-1, nor will this tower be "appurtenances" for any distance other than one direction, 160 feet, all of which is incorrect from the newspaper notice. Not 160 feet "appurtenances" in all directions.

On direction from the chair, I was advised to get to the matter at hand. I then handed out my objection to the construction of this tower. The objection in law Section 5.16.02 #4 of the Zoning Regulations are for the protection of all property owners within the city limits by city of Blytheville, all zones, all people (even "Good Ole Boys" and "Good Ole Girls"), everyone. Basically the law says if a tower or any part there of it falls, it must fall on the property leased, rented or owned for the tower site.

Nowhere was "G" or any of the numbers 3, 4 or 6 brought up by me as an objection. Because the FCC, by law, is in complete control of what is put on this tower or any telephone or micro-transmission tower.

I must say that whoever is in charge of this little project did little, if any, background work in the Blytheville Zoning Regulations or any seismic requirements for this area.

This discussion was completely about lawful location of the tower, nothing else. It is purely a matter of safety.

It is worth noting that we, as in Blytheville, live within the New Madrid Earthquake Zone. It's not a matter of if there will be an earthquake, but when. Absolutely no information about seismic information or earthquake standards for this project was presented. While earthquake safety may seem out of date, this year and month we are celebrating the 200-year anniversary of the 1811-1812 "Great Quake."

Jonathan Abbott

Blytheville