AT&T is headed back to the drawing board after city officials again rejected the company’s plans to build a 5G cell tower at Moore Creek.

The city planning commission rejected the plan for a second time earlier this month, and on Tuesday, Mayor Keith Gaskin broke a tied city council vote to accept the commission’s recommendation.

“We are ready for business here in Columbus,” Gaskin said after casting his vote. “We don’t want this to sound negative against AT&T. But I’m not convinced there aren’t other locations that can be seriously looked at. I also respect the work our commission put into this decision and they rejected it twice.”

AT&T leased the property at Moore Creek next to Highway 82 from Lowndes County, with plans to build a 155-foot monopole that would increase its network and improve service.

“We have a real serious coverage need in this particular location,” C.D. Smith, regional manager for AT&T, told the council during its meeting at the Municipal Complex. “It’s very important to us. … If we had a suitable alternative, we’d use it. We don’t.”

But the planning commission, first in December and again this month, raised aesthetics concerns, especially with the proposed tower’s proximity to the Roger Short Soccer Complex and the potential mixed-use development at Burns Bottom, both of which are near downtown.

Patton Hahn, an attorney with the Baker Donelson firm in Birmingham, Alabama, which is representing AT&T, told the council he “respectfully disagrees” with the planning commission’s ruling.

Not only does it meet the terms of the city’s zoning ordinance, he doesn’t believe it would hurt aesthetics or devalue surrounding property. He noted the company also had clearance from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History that the tower would not negatively impact nearby historic sites.

“It’s right next to a highway,” Hahn said. “It’s where you need cell towers to provide coverage. … We do not think it would be visually intrusive, and we don’t think it is in the view shadow of a significant number of residences. It’s not even located really close to residences.”

AT&T service already is located on 17 towers in the city limits, according to information Casey Howard, lead real estate and construction manager for the company, presented Tuesday. The tower at this location would considerably improve service throughout much of the city, he said.

Further, alternative properties that would fill the same need are either in residential zones (where city ordinance doesn’t allow towers to be built) or the owners did not want to lease it.

Opponents of the tower also spoke Tuesday, including local attorney Amanda Meadows, who represents The Magg Dispensary on Highway 45 next to the Moore Creek parcel. She argued the tower would hurt aesthetics, negatively impacting Burns Bottom and “the people who go to the soccer complex who don’t want to see this massive tower.”

Meadows said both the council and planning commission have asked AT&T multiple times for more information, but she wasn’t satisfied it was ever provided.

“They are giving the same information every time,” Meadows said. “Financially, the only people who are going to benefit from this are AT&T. Because most of the citizens … do not want this at this location.”

Like Gaskin, Meadows also believes there are other better options AT&T failed to pursue.

Becky Boyd, one of The Magg’s owners, said AT&T is trying to “permanently deface the city.”

“I’m not against the cell phone tower,” she said. “… I’m just against the site. … It would be the very first thing people see when they come to the city of Columbus.”

Ward 4 Councilman Pierre Beard, with a second from Ward 6 Councilwoman Jacqueline DiCicco, moved to reject the tower. Ward 1 Councilwoman Ethel Stewart offered a substitute motion to allow the tower to be built at Moore Creek, which drew a second from Ward 5 Councilman Stephen Jones.

Vice Mayor Joseph Mickens, of Ward 2, sided with Stewart and Jones. Rusty Greene, of Ward 3, voted with Beard and DiCicco, prompting Gaskin to break the tie against AT&T.

After the meeting, Smith said he would have to speak with company leadership about how to move forward.

“The capacity need is still there,” he said.

Hahn told the council the company has an option lease with the county, meaning, “if the tower isn’t built (there), we won’t be in a lease.”

Zack Plair is the managing editor for The Dispatch.