Benton County planners OK substation plans
BENTONVILLE — Benton County planners on Aug. 1 approved plans for a Carroll Electric Cooperative substation at 12601 Herbaugh Road near Centerton. The Planning Board rejected the initial plans submitted for the substation.
The board voted 4-1, with one abstention, in favor of the project. Board members Bob Bracy, Sean Collyge, Stephen Torrez and Ashley Tucker voted for the project. Board member Terry Maienschein voted against it. Board chairman Ron Homeyer abstained.
Tucker said the board has the flexibility to consider land uses and mitigation efforts in deciding whether to allow any given land use.
“The applicant has gone through the process and done the things we have approved in the past,” Tucker said.
The board had voted 6-0, with one abstention, against the Carroll Electric project at its June 6 meeting after a pair of public hearings at which developers of nearby properties objected, claiming the substation isn’t compatible with residential development and would lower the value of their property. Concerns over noise and light pollution from the substation, as well as possible safety issues, were also raised.
The Planning Board cited the incompatibility of the proposed substation with surrounding residential development in voting against the plans.
Centerton Mayor Bill Edwards, developers of adjacent property and several current residents spoke in opposition to the project. Jeff Harral said he’s building his retirement home on nearby property and doesn’t want the substation on the site.
“That’s a hideous view, in my opinion,” Harral said.
The plans are for a substation on 15 acres at 12601 Herbaugh Road, just west of Centerton. The station would be on four acres and include two 55-foot tall towers, circuit interrupters and transformers.
At the first hearing, the board asked Jeff Smalley, Carroll engineering manager, to add more landscaping and buffering to plans for the site, along with information on noise level and sight-line studies between the site and adjoining properties. Smalley said the new facility is needed to accommodate the growth of the area.
In the revised plan, presented by Smalley, the property would have a 150-foot buffer zone between the substation and the eastern property line. A 20-foot high earthen berm, with landscaping on the berm, would shield the substation from the property to the east. In the initial proposal, the berm was 5 feet high. The project would have a minimum 50-foot buffer zone to the west, north and south, with trees and other screening. Also, the floor of the substation was lowered by 5 feet in the revised plan.
Property to the north of the site is agricultural. To the east is a residential subdivision, the West End subdivision, while property to the south and west is used for single-family residential and agricultural. Edwards said the city anticipates more property in the area being annexed into the city and more residential development.
Smalley also approved plans for another substation at 10190 Bredehoeft Road. He said the new substation is needed to serve the Simmons Foods plant being built just across Bredehoeft Road.
The board also heard plans for two new cellular towers, one near Siloam Springs and one near Gentry.
The tower near Siloam Springs was proposed on property adjacent to a parcel with a cell tower. Rhonda Dohle, who lives on the adjacent property with her mother, spoke to the board, opposing the new tower. Dohle said her mother could lose income if tenants moved from the older tower to the new one. She also objected to having a second tower so close to their residence.
“I don’t like looking at the one that’s there,” she said. “I don’t want to see another one.”
The board questioned the need for another tower so close to an existing one, including questions about the need for additional service. The board also asked about screening for the tower.
Jim Grice, representing the BRT Group, which builds the towers, said it’s not uncommon for towers to “cluster” in areas. He said the company has an “anchor” customer for the tower and it will be built to accommodate additional customers with the most modern technology.
The board unanimously approved the plans for the Siloam Springs area tower
The board voted to table the Gentry tower plan after voting unanimously to deny a request for a variance from the setback requirements from Collins Road. The plans showed the tower being 258 feet from Collins Road instead of the 290 feet required by the planning ordinance. The ordinance requires towers to be set back by at least the height of the tower plus 50 feet.
Nick Mote, representing the owner of a tower 830 feet away from the proposed Gentry location, objected to the variance to the setback requirement as a safety issue.
Mike Ransom, who said he lives 500 to 600 feet away from the proposed Gentry tower site, also questioned the need for a second tower. Ransom also said another tower will hurt property value and be an eyesore.
“It looks like you’re driving into LA or something,” Ransom said.