Heber City resident Jared Jones compared a 65-foot-tall cell tower planned to be built in his neighborhood to a wasp buzzing around the city Planning Commission’s meeting room on Tuesday.
To those near the front, the insect in the back rows was barely perceptible. But from where Jones was sitting, “that sucker was huge.”
“When you’re close to it, you feel the impact,” he said. “With me being 300 feet away, that (cell tower) is going to look pretty big.”
Over 20 of Jones’ neighbors shared that sentiment during a public hearing about the cell tower. The Planning Commission is considering a rezone on East Center Street near the Wasatch County Health Department to accommodate the height of the cell tower. Current zoning would permit a height of 35 feet.
The Planning Commission did not vote Tuesday and will at its next meeting.
The reason for the height is to ultimately build fewer cell towers in Heber City, explained Helmundt Strumpher, chief operating officer at Atlas Tower Group, the company that entered into a conditional lease agreement with the city to build the tower three months ago.
At 35 feet, the cell tower could accommodate only one telecommunications provider, also called a carrier (for example, Verizon). At 65 feet, the cell tower could accommodate up to three.
The cell tower under discussion targets the surrounding area where cell phone service is unreliable indoors, according to Atlas Tower Group’s coverage map.
Some residents raised concerns that the tower would change their neighborhood.
“A key consideration when we purchase our homes is, ‘What is the zoning near us?’” said Lindy Reioux. “Changing zoning like that, it really changes how people feel about their homes, financially, mentally, and it’s just not fair to the citizens.”
The most common concern from homeowners was that the cell tower would drag down their property values.
In its presentation, Atlas Tower Group argued that such a decline would not occur, backing up its claim with Zillow valuation histories of four Heber City homes near existing cell towers. The homes the company showed had increased in value over the past decade.
Cameron Boyd, a Realtor from Midway, disagreed with Atlas Tower Group’s conclusions. While he acknowledged he is not a certified appraiser, he pulled from his 25-year career and conversations he’d had with local appraisers to form a counter-argument. He said every person he’d spoken to in his field agreed that a decline in property values would occur.
“If I drive 10 qualified buyers to a home immediately adjacent to a 65-foot cell tower, especially when visible from a backyard or any primary living spaces, in my opinion, most of those buyers are going to tell me to just keep driving. They won’t even want to see inside the home,” Boyd said. “That leaves us with a much smaller group that remains interested in the property, but those buyers are going to expect a heavy discount.”
He estimated that the impact on a single home near the cell tower would be “well into the six figures on day one” and argued that the overall impact to neighbors far outweighed the nearly $600,000 in revenue the city would generate from a 20-year lease to Atlas Tower Group.
He also pointed out that the city’s staff report on the cell tower states, “Because of the height and appearance of some wireless services facilities, surrounding properties bear a disproportionate share of the negative impacts of a telecommunications tower.”
The city and Atlas Tower Group have been in negotiations about the location of the tower for nearly two years. In October 2024, the City Council approved a conditional lease agreement to build the tower in the Valley Hills area, which garnered resident pushback. The city did not deny the site, but Atlas Tower Group ultimately decided against the site due to legal and functional constraints related to site access, said city Community Development Director Tony Kohler.
Atlas Tower Group has attempted nearly 50 sites for the cell tower, 12 of which were on city-owned property. The current site under discussion was one of those 12.
City staff, not Atlus Tower Group, decided the location of the cell tower. Atlus Tower Group is on board to consider other city-owned sites.
“We do feel there are more locations we can explore,” Strumpher said. “If we can explore alternative locations with the city, we will definitely do that.”
The most viable location may be the Heber City Cemetery, which “was not considered out of reverence for the deceased,” according to agenda materials. That decision was challenged by residents and planning commissioners.
“I’m sure my parents won’t mind,” joked Commissioner Joshua Knight, whose parents are buried there.
City Councilor Yvonne Barney also made a public comment in support of considering the cemetery as a location.
“I doubt the dead will be able to collect 95 signatures,” she said in reference to a petition against the current site.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Tori Broughton pointed out that the buffer between the cell tower and residences would be larger if it were built in the cemetery.
Strumpher agreed that such a location would be viable.
“It (wouldn’t be) a dead zone,” he joked.
Planning Commission Chair Phil Jordan asked city staff and Atlus Tower Group to gather information about potential alternate locations before the next meeting, when commissioners will approve or deny the zone change for the current site.
Commissioner Robert McKinley suggested also developing a master plan determining where cell towers should be built in the future as demand increases.