Packet: Propagation maps for Verizon tower in Langdale Park @ GLPC 2026-06-29

Here is some information about the Verizon Wireless proposed communications tower in Langdale Park, that was missing from the board packet for the Greater Lowndes Planning Commission (GLPC) meeting on June 29, 2026.

There are still more missing pieces that are required by the county’s own Unified Land Development Code (ULDC):

An inventory in VALORGIS of the applicant’s existing towers or alternative tower structures. See ULDC 5.05.05.B.2
Signature and seal of “appropriate licensed professionals or qualified industry experts.” See 5.05.05.E
An argument for why Langdale Park would not be a “historic district” or a “scenic view corridor.” See 5.05.05.G.5
An argument for why hiking trails cleared by numerous citizens would not be public rights of way. See 5.05.05.I.I. and the Right-of-Way definition on page 1-25.

GLPC recommended approval of TWR-2026-02, but only by a split vote: LAKE videos to come.

The Lowndes County Commission will decide at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, July 14, 2026.

Packet: Propagation maps for Verizon tower in Langdale Park @ GLPC 2026-06-29

The tower would be a stone’s throw from the main trail kiosk, at 30.885908, -83.320453, and right next to White Trail A, which many citizens helped clear of Hurricane Helene deadfalls.

Thanks to Jason Davenport, consultant for Lowndes County Planning, who sent this additional information in the morning before the meeting. He was responding to a followup I sent after the initial county response to the LAKE open records request of the previous Tuesday. My followup request was a brief version of the discrepencies I noted in the LAKE post with the previously-received TWR-2026-02 board packet materials.

Peggy,
Thanks for the files.
However, significant information is missing.
Please send these missing pieces, which are required by the ULDC:
5.05.05.B. Inventory of Existing Sites
5.05.05.E. Availability of Suitable Existing Structures for Collocation demonstration that no existing tower or existing alternative tower structure can accommodate the proposed antenna
5.05.05.G.5. explanation of how a tower on this site would not negatively affect a historic district and a scenic view corridor in VLPRA’s largest park, which is mostly wooded and has a river running by it
5.05.05.I.1. explanation for why the tower would not be too close to a property line of the lot or parcel containing the tower, and too close to the public right-of-way of a hiking trail
For the public to make informed comments at a Public Hearing on this item, the public needs to see the information required by the ULDC, especially given that staff wrote that

“The decision to be made by the Board of Commissioners is not a zoning decision. It is a quasi-judicial decision whether the standards for a telecommunications tower in Section 5.05.05 of the ULDC are met.”

The rest of my message was just the usual copies by email, willing to pay, etc.

I actually did not notice Jason’s response until after the GLPC meeting. Then I replied to him in part:

Some of those [ULDC] requirements appear still not to be met.
In 5.05.05.B.1. “To facilitate the co-location review of antennas, each applicant seeking to locate a new tower, alternative tower structure or antenna, or modify any such existing structure, shall provide an updated inventory of its existing towers or alternative tower structures. Applicants seeking to erect and amateur radio tower or antenna, or receive-only antenna as described in Section 5.05.03(C), shall be exempt from this provision. This required inventory information shall be maintained by Lowndes County in the form of a digital database that is geographically referenced and encoded as part of the County’s Geographic Information System (VALOR). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that this inventory data is accurate and kept up to date.”

I do not see any of that information in VALORGIS.
Could you please point me to it?
Please note also 5.05.05.B.2 “The inventory shall include all such structures that are within the jurisdiction of the governing authority; within a municipality located, in whole or in part, within Lowndes County; or within one-quarter (1/4) mile outside the border of Lowndes County. This inventory shall include specific information about the location (latitude and longitude coordinates), height, design, tower type, and general suitability for antenna co-location of each tower. Such information is a public document.”

Since that information is a public document, I do not know why county staff should have to ask the applicant before returning it in response to an open records request.
It doesn’t matter if it says at the bottom “Confidential and proprietary material….”
By submitting it to the county to satisfy the ULDC, this clause applies: “Such information is a public document.”

…
Not including them [the propagation maps] in the packet deprived the Planning Commissioners of a chance for review before the meeting.
And not including them in the packet deprived the public of a chance to review them before commenting in a Public Hearing.
For that matter, the county not publishing the board packet deprived the public of a chance to property review the case before commenting in the Public Hearing.
In 5.05.05.E. “Availability of Suitable Existing Structures for Collocation No new tower, except amateur radio towers, shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates that no existing tower or existing alternative tower structure can accommodate the proposed antenna. All evidence submitted shall be signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals or qualified industry experts….”

I see at the beginning of the “RF Propagation Maps for BERMUDA RUN Site” that you sent, there is the name
“Anm Badruddoza, Radio Frequency Engineer, Verizon Wireless”.
But I do not see any signature or seal.

In 5.05.05.G.5 “Towers shall not be located where they will negatively affect historic structures or districts, or scenic view corridors.” These terms are not defined in the ULDC, so far as I can tell: “historic districts” or “scenic view corridors.” In the Planning Commission meeting JD dismissed all that by saying there were no historic districts outside of Valdosta. So why does 5.05.05.G.5 refer to those terms in the county ULDC (not the city LDR)?

I don’t think he addressed scenic view corridors. If Hyta Mederer Drive leading through Langdale Park to the Withlacoochee River is not a scenic view corridor, I’m not sure what around Valdosta would be.
Regarding 5.05.05.I.I. “Setbacks
The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers:
1. Towers/antennas shall be setback a minimum distance equal to one third (1/3) of the height of the tower from its base to any public right-of-way or property line of the lot or parcel containing the tower.”
See the definition on page 1-25: “Right-of-Way. A portion of land being used or to be used as a public street, road, thoroughfare, crosswalk, pipeway, drainage canal, and/ or other similar uses and designated by means of right-of-way lines.”

If a crosswalk counts as a right-of-way, it would seem that a public hiking trail that was recently cleared of hurricane debris by many members of the public would count. I did not hear any argument to the contrary.

Once again, I appreciate your honesty.
I would appreciate even more seeing the remaining missing information: tower inventory in VALORGIS and expert signature and seal.

And I would appreciate seeing substantive responses to ULDC paragraphs 5.05.05.G.5 and 5.05.05.I.I.

I would be most appreciative on seeing complete board packets on lowndescounty.com before GLPC and Lowndes County Commission meetings.

This new information is on the LAKE website. Images of each page are below.

I would have thought most of these followups would not have been necessary, since at least the first two items should have been covered by this paragraph in the original LAKE open records request of June 23, 2026:

Please be sure to include the correspondence to board and staff about any rezoning items, including letters to the Planning Commission and to the County Commission, and to individual Commissioners, along with any replies.

Evidently such LAKE open records requests to Lowndes County will have to be even more explicit.

-jsq

Investigative reporting costs money, for open records requests, copying, web hosting, gasoline, and cameras, and with sufficient funds we can pay students to do further research. You can donate to LAKE today!
http://www.l-a-k-e.org/blog/donate

RF Propagation Maps for BERMUDA RUN Site, Anm Badruddoza, Radio Frequency Engineer, Verizon Wireless
PDF