Conditional Use (Regular) – Ace Cheval, Inc/VB BTS, LLC/T-Mobile South, LLC – 195-Foot Above-Ground-Level Monopole Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) in a MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District – South Central Pasco County – On the North Side of 20 Mile Level Road, Approximately 1,550 Feet East of Collier Parkway File Number PDD23-CU11
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 6, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 6, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 18m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 52% of 365 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
And and Mr. Chair, as a point of order, we're going to start with P eleven and then we're gonna move on to P fourteen. Okay. After P eleven. And if um my colleague can bring up the PowerPoint for P11.
So P11 is PDD23CU11. This is a conditional use for 195-foot above-ground level monopole wireless communication facility in an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development. The applicant are Ace Chaval, VBBTS L L C and T-Mobile South. See if I can.
The property is located in south-central Pasco County on the north side of 20 Mile Level Road, approximately 1,550 feet east of Collier Parkway. This is the zoning visual, which basically shows that the surrounding area to the north is an MPD, and that's Plantation Palms MPD, and which is the golf course. The actual subject property is the maintenance facility for the pet Plantation Palms golf course. To the south and southwest are the Land O'
Lakes Recreation Complex.
And this is the land use showing that it's res six surrounding area.
This is your aerial just showing that the access to the property is from Twenty Mile Level Road, which is a county-maintained local road that has forty feet of right-of-way. And the access to the compound and lease area is going to be through a twenty-foot-wide access and utility easement, which is located off of Twenty Mile Level Road.
This is kind of showing you a larger buffer around the property a thousand feet.
And this is the general site plan for the Monocle tower on the maintenance facility property.
As previously stated, it consists of the Plantation Palms Golf Course maintenance facility, which is within the Plantation Palms MPUD. They're proposing a 195-foot above-ground level monopole, which consists of a 185-foot wireless communication facility with a 10-foot lightning rod, and is suitable for the co-location of three additional carriers, and it's going to be located within a 3,819 square foot fence compound area. The surrounding area consists of the Plantation Palms Golf Course and the Land O' Lakes Recreation Complex.
It's located in the South Market area and the urban service area. Wireless communications facilities are either a permitted use or a conditional use in all zoning districts and all land use classifications. There was a neighborhood meeting that was held on January 25th, 2023. The county noticed Pilot Country Airport and Tampa North Aero Park since they are within less than 10 nautical miles of the location, and we did not receive any comments. We did receive a letter of support from the Plantation Palms Homeowners
Association, and there was a letter of objection that was received from a property owner that's located approximately five. four hundred fifty feet northwest of the proposed compound area. The request was reviewed by Omnicom Consulting, who's our radio frequency engineering consultant for the county. And Omnicom agreed with the statements of T Vobile's RF consultant and recommends approval of the conditional use. And this comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet. And
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
All right. Thank you. Any questions on staff?
If not, is the applicant present?
And we do have someone signed up to speak on this m item.
Okay. You would like to speak now and make a presentation or wait till your
I would like to I would like to be heard.
Very good.
All right.
Do you request extra time? I'm not sure what you who once requested extra
time. So as a point of order before we get going, if you do want a full presentation from me, it will take approximately twenty minutes. Um otherwise I can give you a condensed presentation that focuses exclusively on the RF need within the three minute window. It is the pleasure I will follow the pleasure of this commission.
Okay. Well uh did you ask for extra time in in advance?
The applicant did not ask for extra time in advance, but just to clarify that the applicant has five minutes time, not three minutes. So five minutes. All right. All right.
I will stick to a condensed presentation. I apologize if I sound a little bit rushed. Alright, so good afternoon. I'm Matt Chinaya John, 935 Main Street, Suite C4, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. I come before you today with staff recommendation of approval for a 195-foot-tall monopole style communication tower, which is 185 feet a tower with 10 feet of lightning rod. As you heard we are. Just as a quick orientation, I'm in all maps I show you today
up will be north. So you can see the yellow marker, that is the proposed location of the monopole. You can see the purple area, that's the Land O' Lakes Recreation Center. It is an intensely used recreation center with lighted sports fields. There is also high voltage power line signified by the orange line that runs to the map. And then the gray marker shows an existing flagpole style communication tower. You may have noticed in your staff report that this is to replace that flagpole style communication tower. T-Mobile is not trying to
establish new service in the area. They're trying to stay concurrent with existing existing use as it has expanded over the years. So think of this like in Hillsborough County or how you fight your battles with your roads, always keeping up with expansions and traffic. The cellular companies do the exact same thing. And the sectors in this area have reached threshold levels that would be similar to dysfunctional classifications on your roads.
This is just a closer view. Again, we're on the maintenance facility. And you can see the layout with the power lines immediately south of us and the recreation center off to the south and west.
And this is just the closer view.
There are no other towers within 1500 feet. That's a code required radius, except for the flagpole. I will go into the flagpole in a minute why it is.
Insufficient. We've gone through your maps. When I say a monopole style communication tower, I'm referring to a tower like this, one single support pole, external antennas up top, cabling internal. It'll be completely dark at night and a dull gray finish.
These are excerpts from sheet Z2 of the plans.
These are photo simulations, I can come back to them if you need me to, but they are all in your record.
This is a shot from the south just showing how many objects are in the view shed. This is the RF justification that you have on file. Your expert has reviewed it and concurs with T-Mobile that this tower is needed. Fundamentally, what's going on is the tower, which is its area of coverage, are those three yellow blotches. So yellow, red, and fuchsia.
What's absorbing the traffic in the area? You can see all the other T-Mobile towers in the area. The towers break down into triangles called sectors. But the three that we are most concerned about are the yellow, red, and fuchsia fuchsia or bright purple color one. When that starts to overload, it also just like a bad road is dysfunctional, it spills over onto your neighboring towers. But today I have congestion data for the tower that we are trying to replace. I just wanted to keep you in mind
that once this tower is able to function properly, it will take stress off the neighboring towers as well.
This is a traffic density map from Teen Mobile. Your expert looked at it. Basically, light blues are low densities of connections, and reds are highest densities of connections. You can see that there is a concentration of connections to the west, and then there are density, there's dense connections scattered throughout plantation palms. Essentially, what this tower is trying to do is reach both northeast and southwest and pick up all that traffic. Okay. This is the capacity threshold to think of this like your this measures the traffic.
Um this measures the traffic that you see um across the antennas and essentially the orange and the purple lines are the northeast and the southwest. So those are the directions that
are picking up the traffic. Um a flagpole you cannot add additional antennas and not only that, you can't place modern antennas. They will overheat. It would be akin to you placing your antennas in your Wi Fi router into your attic and letting it cook. That concludes my summary presentation, and I'm available for any questions that you may have.
Can I have one quick? Sure, yeah. Could you explain why the existing flagpole tower I get the constraints of the existing flagpole tower tower, but it can you explain why that cannot just be removed and replaced with this tower at that location?
So by the time that by the that that tower is owned by a different company, um by the time that it reaches my desk. The way Team Mobile's process works is that they first come to their existing tenant and say, Hey, we've been renting with you for years. We need more space, just like you might with trying to get more space for an office or whatever business you might have. When those discussions break down, because that replacement is a lot easier, it's a site plan and building permit approval
that does not require public. Yeah. When those discussions break down, say the tower company is not willing to replace the tower, that's when it comes onto my desk. So while I don't have the details of that communications, it is confidential, subject to the lease that T-Mobile has with that owner. I've worked in towers for 10 years and been attached to over 200 sites, and by the time it gets to my desk, it's because that dialogue. has broken down.
So essentially essentially the owner of that tower was basically Didn't want to remove it and replace it with a new tower.
Yes, sir, and I do apologize for giving you a five dollar question the answer to a one dollar question.
Okay. Thank you.
Can that existing tower be converted? It's a flagpole and I saw in the staff report that one of the issues was that you couldn't fit your equipment inside the canister that creates the flagpole and that can't Roved and then that equipment fit on the tower?
Uh fundamentally no. Uh the way that the top of a flagpole works, and if you want, I can get my tablet out and we can get pictures pulled up, I'll have to plug into your projector system. But you see the tower outside, which is built to support a loading of a pole. This one's not even built for a flag. Um and then what you're going to do is open that up and inside there there's an internal support pole that is smaller than the tower. Normally that external support pole would go all the way up. So you have a much
reduced structure that's meant to give space for small antennas and just hold the fiberglass covers. So now you're going to take that off. You're going to need an entire triangular head frame to support your antennas and your radios. And your antennas are larger than they used to be. We're talking antennas that are about two feet wide, ten inches deep, eight feet tall. I could literally lay down inside the weather cover of one of these and be covered, or at least I hope I still can. Anyway.
So you're adding windload to that tower and weight to a tower that wasn't even designed to support any type of a platform. It would need to be a complete replacement, and that's before we even get into the fact that it was built for a much earlier Florida building code.
So for your proposed tower, I noticed that there was a lot of discussion about tree camouflage in the neighborhood meeting. Is that still something that's in consideration or what what I did it indicates that you're gonna go back to your engineer and discuss that with him? Is that something that's still in consideration?
I did go back and discuss it with my project team and uh Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile are willing to go with a camouflage if the Planning Commission Feels that it's appropriate here. The reason that we're not proposing at this time is because a tree camouflage is highly contextual. and in order to implement it well, you have to have canopy around it and you have to be talking something more in the range of a hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty feet. So for example, call your county down in their estates where they
have extremely small view sheds and the like, they love using that because you're talking about towers that are much smaller. Here you have a tower that would largely be by itself Against a background of high voltage power lines and sports lights, and it'd be 195 feet tall. As you got towards the middle and northern parts of, you know, as you got further away, you would have the context necessary. But for the closest properties, you would have basically a tree standing there by itself, and
it would have a lot more bulk, and it would be a contrasting color from. Um the background. So we think that the lack of context would make it stand out more. If you want, I have an example picture of monopine of a monopine deployed poorly without context, if you would like to see that.
Yeah, it'd be helpful 'cause I I hear all that you're saying, but I read the report and it says the majority of the attendancies would pref or the attendees would prefer that. Camouflage though. And I spent hours and hours at those baseball fields right next to it so I know exactly where the site is located and how visible it would be in that general
area. Understood. So this is um and just to provide context on the community meeting, I had four attendees to that. Okay. Um but this is a picture of a monopine deployed poorly. So as you can see, it is so tall and unfortunately This doesn't look like an extension of the canopy. And when you deploy a monopine, you really want it to look something like a Norfolk pine down here in Florida where it extends up from the canopy.
Any other questions that I may answer for the board at this time?
So um you I know you can't really speak to the landlord. Uh I'm over here.
I'm so sorry.
That's okay. The voice from above. Um apologies. I know you can't speak to the uh desires of the uh landlord or or who owns the existing flagpole tower too much, but do you have an idea what what the future of that tower might be if this is approved and T Bowl moves to the new site?
So right now you have T-Mobile and Verizon on that tower. I know that Verizon is in every bit as much priority to bring their coverage to concurrent status as Team Mobile is. They're just currently attacking different Marines, that's why they did not anchor this one is my guess. I would think that once this tower is constructed, Verizon would move over. At that point it
should be an empty tower, at which case your code would have under its abandonment provision would require it to be taken down.
Within six months, yeah. Okay. Thanks. Mm. Baby, did you have something?
I did but no I forgot my question. Oh I know you showed us this example, but in the actual field on this one I assume there's no canopy whatsoever.
So what you have is scattered trees throughout the area. So you have certain houses you have certain areas where there is canopy and certain where there's not. And so since they're scattered instead of a consistent canopy, that's why we believe the context would not work.
I guess I'm really asking is it for some reason it was a lower tower similar to Collier County? Would it still stick out in this area because of lack of tree canopy? Yes, sir.
Okay.
Okay. Uh anything else before we hear from the uh let
me ask one quick question. I apologize. I'm trying to think of the wording of my question. You you use the word traffic. Is the tower or towers that are in the area receiving such transmissions that the traffic is like on a roadway that there's just too much? In other words, if you're on a street, too many cars on the street, you need to expand the road itself. Is that the same kind of concept that you use for these towers that there's just so many
new residents or so many phone calls, not phone calls, cells, or use of wireless uh communication systems, either for television, smartphones and smart TVs, that type of thing? That what you're referring to as traffic and therefore there's a need for the towers?
This is Matt and I John again and um Commissioner Hansel that is exactly what I mean. Okay.
Clarification. Thank
you.
Okay. Uh let's hear from the public and then you'll have an opportunity to come back up and answer questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon.
Afternoon.
We can have your name or names and
Tom and Don Lavreri and we're at 3112-Sago.4 We're in plantation palms and many of the of the aerial shots that you had there, our poem was actually uh pictured there. So first we want to just say is um we're not opposed to progress, okay, and we're not opposed to Ace. Um we know him as Ace Golf. He came and bought our golf community when it was uh in bankruptcy and the weeds were this high. We actually live on the golf course, but we don't live on the golf. golf course, but you know we have golf course home
site. So we had weeds like this, you know, like tree trunks. In fact we were on the committee to go around to the neighborhood to promote him purchasing the course because it was good for the neighborhood. And at that time it was an issue of our home values. Okay. And that's one thing I haven't heard anybody ask a question of or or them mention is home values. Um I'm a real estate but we're real estate agents. I've been licensed since 1987, so I've been selling in Florida for over 20 years. But we have all kinds of
studies and proof that I'll just read a couple here. This is um we found this on the National Association of Realtors site, and it says uh there's a negative. Negative price effect of 2.65%. And this is a negative price impact of 9.78% is much more severe for properties within the visible range of the tower. That's just one. Then we have this one here was um was put out in Alabama. It's a little bit dated, it's 1917. I mean uh 2017, sorry.
It says for properties located within, I don't know why they use kilometers, within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, you've got significant social welfare costs and values declining of 2.46% on average and up to 9.78% homes within tower visibility compared to homes outside the visibility range. Um so and in the conclusion and and this is this is a huge report with all kinds of data and you know, charts and things
like that which I don't really understand but I'm taking taking their word for it. And then the conclusion says Our results reveal wireless tower capitalization only in the value of those properties that are within the approximate 0.7 kilometers. On average, potential external costs is approximately $4,000 per resident, to a negative effect of an impact of 9.78%, much more severe for properties within the range of
the tower. And then this negative impact vanishes as it exceeds that range. So, and I have about five different reports that kind of say the same thing. And one of them says, and you guys know this, um, the government is supposed to allow allow things unless it affects you know unless it affects us. So number one is can it be moved to a different location would be ideal and someone asks questions, can it be you know can it be put where the current one is, which would be great. But
then we went on to Google Maps and we showed we can leave all this stuff with you. We showed where our house is compared to um to this. Oh and go back and just Say the point seven two kilometers is twenty three hundred feet. So our home is five hundred feet from this thing. So not only is it an eyesore, but it's also is also going to reduce the value of our homes. Um so we're gonna look out our back door and we're gonna see this every day. And we're probably just the few that are gonna see it. Many much of the community is not, but it
should be it shouldn't be there. It should be somewhere else.
And can you show us on the map where you are in relation to the 10 or site? Sure.
Map of the community. We have one that actually shows the homes. I can show you exactly where it is.
If I'm not mistaken one of the photos sends actually I think this one's yours, right? Yeah, yeah.
Sorry. So that's I believe it's this one.
We're actually two doors left.
Right, but that's a photo sent from like by your
street. Is this your street? This is our street.
Right. So we're actually the home on the left, we're to the left of that. So we just spent about forty thousand dollars in our backyard, we just added to it, put a nice little, you
know,
area out there. We're getting older, we're getting ready to retire. We just talked yesterday and said. I can't wait for the pool to start heating up so we could use it. And now we're gonna be sitting in the back there and we're gonna see this thing. So again.
And it's so close it's just gonna be a monster out there.
But not so much even just the impact on our view, it's the property values. So they're talking about cost. If you if you're gonna say let's say it's ten percent, I mean our house is worth six hundred thousand. If they were give us sixty thousand dollars and all of our neighbors then okay, when we go to sell, we'll take 10% off our price. I'm okay with that. or hide it or or plant trees. You know, obviously we need big trees, but you know, give us trees in our backyard so we don't look at this thing.
Ideally if it were wearing the current
What's that tall tower right behind your house that's in this picture?
Yeah, that's
that that's the proposed
tower, that's right. Yeah, it's a photo simulation. So we've been there since since uh two thousand three. And again, we're not opposed to um you know to progress. We have the ball fields that were there. Then they added more ball fields, right? You said you've been to all those, so now we have all these lights, you know, they turn off at nine PM, but we're okay. We I
was
a baseball coach. I love seeing the kids out there. 9 p.m. It's done. Okay. Then they added these high tension wires, which we had no control over that. So now we see much lower. Yeah, now we see that. In fact, I don't, you know, the woman here probably could can uh corroborate this. That flagpole is only at like 100 feet. This is 195 feet. Um, and I have a letter here that I I wrote it. You know, I've been a real estate agent. like I said, thirty something years. And um I know when I'm out with customers, if you have and you guys think
about this yourself. If you're looking in the neighborhood, you have two identical homes, one home has a tower behind you, one doesn't. Which one are you gonna buy? I mean it's and and you know this has been my career doing this, so I I I know it has it definitely affects the value. I'm sorry, I know we went over on our time but
C can I ask you a quick question? Sure. Visually I cannot determine the distance between your home and that tower. I have I have this air. Just tell me what a ballpark distance would be in feet. Oh, well it's it's five five hundred and fifteen feet. From your house? From my yep. Okay. Then if I look a little bit to the right of that tower, I see I guess power lines that are on the tip of the house that's next door to you to
your right. Right. So Does that impact your vision also? That does. Yeah.
It's a little further back.
Okay, but it still would impact your the the uh visual appeal of your home, correct?
Yeah we have a picture of that. You know,
they're on the other side of that twenty mile road.
My mind is
So
basically you've got the power pole to your right. Yeah, we got the right. And then you're gonna have that five hundred some odd feet behind your home. Just not really sold on how much of an impact it would really make in you as time goes along. I mean I think that's a good thing.
Well that's that's further away, so it's a thin looking pole. This is gonna be how wide is it gonna be at the base? It's gonna be six, eight feet wide at the base. So you can imagine how big this thing is. So this is that pole is much further away and much taller. Okay,
it's
Sir could you comment on the suggestion that the pole could be camouflaged with a tree? Did you I mean if the Planning Commission were to approve this, does it alleviate your concerns at all if it was camouflaged?
Yes, sure if it's camouflage, but I believe what she said is because it's so tall, the camouflage really has to be like on our property. So when we're sitting there we don't see it.
No, I mean if the the the tower itself was sort of like the picture that we saw earlier where it was the tower itself looks like a tree.
I think it'll just be a different eyesore, just be a be a tree looking thing out there, you know.
But that first meeting where that was brought up, we had no idea how tall 195 feet was. It's so tall for us no way popularity.
And I have the feeling had more of the neighborhood knew I can almost guarantee you when this if this thing does go, because we're only a few people and we may not matter, but if this thing does go in, I can almost guarantee you all these people are going to be in an upper order. And it's too late then. Okay. That's why we're here today.
Is this the first time that you're seeing this photo simulation? No, we
actually went to the meeting uh that she proposed to us back in I don't know, January.
Okay.
Now the earlier meeting that they said they had with the HOA, we had no knowledge of that when we've been involved with the HOA since two thousand three. We didn't know about that meeting. We probably would have opposed it then. Uh the earliest we heard about this was just Not long ago. Yeah.
Is the cellular
service at your house good? We actually have T-Mobile and it's great, so we don't need it. This is a T Mobile uh tower, so I don't see why we need it.
I have a feeling it just costs a lot more to take down the current tower and rebuild the proper tower in that location than it would put it on the golf course. So it you know, it's a matter of cost for them, but this is a matter of our home, you know, our our enjoyment. And so it's you know, I think it should be reconcerted to move it from there's an existing tower, why move the tower into a residential neighborhood?
Okay, well we'll see if we can get some answers for you. Any other questions from up here? If not, uh I'll invite the applicant back up. Do we have any other comments? Anything else? I don't think so. I asked.
Can I ask the landowner a question before the applicant comes up? Is anybody represented from Ace here or no?
It's the landowner here.
Mm. Anybody that represents the landowner.
Are you representing the one do you have do you either land in or
the region on this?
Good afternoon, Matt Snaya John again and yes, I'm the agent of record for the landowner. I also have my site acquisition agent here as well, in case you want to hear a little more about the HOA
vote. This is my specific question, because We have a lot of golf courses in Pasco County that we're losing because they're going under. And um I heard this gentleman previously say that Pace came in and bought this golf course and I guess is now running it. My question was how important is this lease revenue to the operation of this golf course to the landowner. Because I mean, what I would hate to see happen is if if this lease revenue
is important to the golf course owner and he's gonna lose the golf course if he doesn't have this revenue, that seems like that would impact the landowner even more than Tower. Because we we're losing golf courses all over Pasco County Ad so I'm my question and I don't even know if you can answer it is how important is the lease revenue to the operation of the golf course?
I'm going to bring up this Matt and I John again. I'm going to bring up Steve Hutchinson, who was a site acquisition agent who dealt directly with the golf course.
Uh
my name is
Steven Hutchinson. I live at [address removed]. Stephen, have you been sworn?
Have you
been sworn? Yes.
Thank
you. Um I started negotiations in twenty fifteen with with Bill Place, the owner of Ace Chival. Um the monetary consideration that he's getting escalates annually and it's very important to him, especially to maintain his greens. Um I've had several conversations with him and uh the revenue it's gonna benefit the golf course greatly.
Okay, thank you.
Have I adequately answered your question, Council Bolsonaro? Yeah, go up with your rebuttal and you've answered my question, yes. Yes sir. Alright. So just to run through some things.
Um so you had some articles that are supposedly published by the National Association of Realtors if you are concerned about property values I have a property value study. Um Prepared by an appraiser for another vertical bridge site. Um, I would be happy to request a continuance, have that person prepare a study for your review, and then we'd be back here next month where he would testify
that
when you take and total up the um sites that are around Florida, because he's been looking at uh houses in proximity to tower sites in the Tampa Orlando South Florida markets. Yeah. For a decade and a half and you compare them against houses that are not proximate, there's no decrease in cost. So that's just him looking at raw numbers. Um and I ask
you a corollary question to that. Has anybody did a study about
The impact on home values if you have poor cell service.
Uh so that's a I do not have a study to that effect, but I know that Poor cell service came up has has come up in House Buyers Atlanta, where they were chosen houses by cell service. But I do not have a direct study on that.
Okay. 'Cause I in my experience very few people have landlines anymore and it seems like Most people are relying on cell service for their homes. I think that might have an impact on home values
but I'm not an expert,
that's why
I asked the question. I would posit that it does from anecdotally from being around the tower industry. The closest thing I can give you to concrete evidence at this particular moment, and again, if you want us to go study that, we'll do our best, is actually the 911 call statistics for your own county. And I have a copy of them here. Admitted Hillsborough County's 901 call statistics with the application at the time because we did not
have the data back from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
But you can see in 2021, 83.9% of all 911 calls received by the Penellas by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office came from wireless numbers. And that just underscores that the landline is going away. And what we use is wireless connectivity. Um we use it for phone connections, we use it for our Zoom. classes and businesses. Uh we're going into the Internet of Things. And those are all connections.
Even your watch, even some of your watches connect to the network these days and it's only going to expand. To the network, a connection is a connection. It takes up space. Um so anyways
Can I ask you what year the study was done?
So this study that I have is from July 19th, 2022. What he does is he keeps going along with his pool of studies, going back to the older ones, pulling new data, and keeps following his group.
And this is just 911 calls, not
Oh this. My apologies. Yeah,
I'll
talk about the study here. Yes, sir. So that's from 2022. Okay. So theoretically it could be outdated. It could be higher, yes sir. And that is the trends I've observed over the years. Um All right.
Just to take and give a little bit of context on separation, neighboring Hillsboro County actually considers a tower separation of 250 feet to be so compatible that if this tower was was in Hillsborough County, we could go through the process administratively. Because the nearest ho the nearest house is in the four hundred foot range. Just to give context, of course, you are evaluating under your own code. I'm just trying to Help add some lay of
the land. As far as the high voltage power lines, um Mr. Hutchinson is willing to testify that those are in the hundred and sixty foot height range, so about thirty feet shorter. They are fundamentally the same technology. If you'd like, I can pull up Valmont.com. They're a fabricator of monopole style structures. Fundamentally, the technology, the structure of it is the same as what you see with like your traffic lights with that kind of octagonal steel structure that slips
over the other. Except for this is meant to go up instead of supporting. crossburse. And your high voltage power lines are the same. They are the same fundamental structure, except they have to take more loads from the wires. So they're every bit as big. Um
I know that the opinion of my the opinion of our neighbors is that their cell service is good. but it doesn't change the reality of the data that I have presented to you. You've heard unqualified opinion from those neighbors, but I've provided you data which your own county expert has reviewed and concurred with. But the need is here.
Ca just to so we're clear, is is the need an existing need or are you projecting because You're gonna have an increase in data or volume that that's gonna drive the need for this terrorist, right?
Uh Matt and I, John again, and it is an existing need. So there's already use that's over the thresholds for congestion.
And what happens when that when you exceed the threshold of people get slower service? Is that what happens?
So a variety of things happen. Um have you ever placed a phone call and not had it actually dial, it just kinda sits there and waits and doesn't do anything? If you replaced a caller and just went beep beep beep instead of dialing. or maybe used your map, uh tried to use your maps and it can't lock on to where you are and can't figure out where you are. That's all because the towers in the area don't have the bandwidth to deal with you. Um you know, having your navigation not work or having your Zoom connection bug out
is, you know a setback, right? But having that call not go through could be critical.
So on on these graph where is that optimal level of frequency or or the like is that blue line that's representative uh on the top graph? I mean is that anything below that is indicating subpar performance or how how do we
help me understand that a little bit more? Understood and I apologize for rushing through this in the primary presentation. So what you're looking at here is basically users per 20 megahertz of capacity, essentially, from a computing standpoint or a radio frequency standpoint. So the lower the line is against on that chart, the better, because it means that there's more room to take up. The blue line is the Congestion
threshold. So for this situation they've mapped all three sectors on the tower and you have the one sector that points to the southeast where you have a more rural layout heading toward and you have swamps, you can see that black line down there is very low. But sectors, the orange and the pink sectors, which point towards high density residential and the recreation center, are have
a lot of use on them and they are over the capacity threshold.
So those are basically the uh three antennas that are in the
Essentially. That's the one of the primary problems with a um flagpole. You know, you might need a deployment that ranges from six six to twelve antennas and with a flagpole you have three older ones that aren't even powerful enough to handle the capa the computing capacity you need.
And you can't reorient the antennas 'cause then you would leave a dead spot I would assume if you did and
it would, but it's even worse than that.
So this is a diagram from another flagpole that was recently replaced in Pasco County. And this is this shows a unipole canister. You can see the outer circle. You can see an inner circle. That's that center support pole that I've talked about. And then you can see the modern antennas that they that T Mobile uses. The one on the top is actually the smaller antenna and you can see it just barely fits inside the canister. And then the one on the bottom is the bigger antennas that I talk about that are eight feet tall and you can see those don't fit at all. But if
you look, those are oriented on Um I'm going to call them prime directions for a circle, basically zero they're oriented on thirds. I
suppose the antennas proprietary.
So th those antennas um How they are used is pro proprietary. Uh the actual models are not, and we have included that in the data that we sent over to your other manufacturers
of the antennas that could be used that might fit in the existing canister?
Not that I'm aware of because this is the way T-Mobile does their network architecture. Um those antennas are limited in part by how they um Mm-hmm. There's a lot going on with them in that they're limited by the frequencies that they can broadcast, but then also because they have um processing capacity up on the top of them that functions different than competitors essentially, that allows them to handle more traffic.
Well yeah, it handles five G and some of the newer technologies that are coming out.
Yes, sir. So basically more um basically these are five G compatible and then they're also designed to handle more volume on the four G network.
But if you were to try to point on one of those antennas, let's say you've got the one to the top pointing towards plantation, right, on our lower diagram, and you have the one on the left pointing off towards Collier Parkway in the Recreation Center, with the one on the right being the one that points towards the swamp, you physically can't turn it. So not only are you taking coverage away from that direction, there are houses and users and apartments down there,
um, you physically can't do it with a f with a um
Not within the flagpole.
Can I ask a question? Sure. So I think you addressed why you can't use the existing flagpole or the existing flagpole site. Could you address why you can't have this tower over closer to the light poles where the park is? 'Cause there's a already existing sort of visual intrusion there. Um why couldn't the tower be located there?
Absolutely. Let me back up real quick.
Okay.
So here is your county property appraisers line work. Um and unfortunately I don't have a pointer here, but you can see where the tower is proposed. Immediately south of there is a septic drainage field for the um for the Forgive me, for the maintenance facility supporting it. That's why it's not shifted further south on the parcel itself. Immediately south of that is
a strip of right-of-way. You can see it's rather narrow next to 20-mile-level road that's owned by Pasco County. Then you have the 20-mile level road right-of-way itself directly south of there. And then south of that is the parks parcel and on that is your high voltage power lines. So they're literally on different sides of the same road.
Okay, but um I'm asking Okay, I don't know where the light poles are for this park. Yes, sir. But I'm asking why can't they be located near the light poles? I mean I realize that's a different property owner, it's the county, but I'm asking what What's preventing you from going closer to the light poles on the county property?
Um I've I can bring Steve Hutchinson up to bring to give some additional information there. Okay. We initially had
the
pole right up against the power.
We initially have the tower oh Stephen Hutchinson, I'm sorry. We initially had the tower near the power lines on the north side, but it didn't meet the setback, so we had to move it back 30
And then the other question the other question is.
I'm not asking about this site, okay, that you're on now. I'm asking the county owns a park there. It's got light poles. Did you explore putting the tower on the continent I realize you can't put it on the existing flagpole site because you don't control that site. I'm asking you, did you explore moving it to another location within the park site, for example, close to the light poles?
I did not speak with the Pasco County Parks and Direc and Recreation.
I'm sorry I didn't answer your answer. He didn't know.
I did search the most of the areas, this one fit the bo fit the most. I had a point two five mile radius to work with.
Yeah. And I I think just to kinda clarify, I think the question is more, I mean, aga again, why why isn't this tower located at like south of the ball fields there? Where there's less residential around, it's it's more of an isolated area. I'm assuming there's light towers and stuff around the the baseball fields that it blends in better with.
I can answer that. Okay. Um so it is standard practice in the industry for tower ground leases to include a non-compete agreement. But they say, we will lease on your property, in this case the sports complex, but you can't build another tower on here. You can't cheat on us essentially and get more rent. Um So I don't have access to that particular lease. We could try to go get a public records request with
parks on that. But that would be the reason why an experienced site acquisition agent would avoid that, because it would run afoul of a clause that is in almost every ground lease in the industry.
So the existing tower is on county property, is that what you're saying?
Yes, sir it is. It's actually on the parks rec the parks and recreation property as part of that complex.
But there's a third party that leases from the county that owns this tower?
Yeah, correct.
Okay.
Well I think I think what what she's she's saying is that and I don't have the lease in front of me. Do we Denise do we have it?
I can send you a copy.
may have a non compete that prevents the county from leasing s some other portion of the park site to another provider, but I don't No if that's the case or not, but we We're the county, all of our leases are public records, so it shouldn't be hard to figure that out.
Do you know if that's the case, Denise? Do you you have a copy of the lease?
I have a copy of the lease, but I would have to like literally look through it. Um email it to me. I I am, I'm gonna send it to you right now.
Are there other alternative camouflages other than trying to make it look like a pine tree? I mean I for instance I've been down East Lake Road, there's one in front of a church that is a b a bell tower. What stops
you from doing that?
So
this is Matt Toniah John again. A bell tower is something that is physically possible at this site, but you would have a bell tower adjacent to a adjacent to a golf course maintenance facility. So again, I would suggest that it doesn't make contextual sense. Um those work in areas where you have church campuses or you have educational
campuses where it looks like a Carillion as part of the overall campus.
I'm sorry? I'd rather look at
the
Carillion than that antenna.
Understood. Um
The reason that we the reason that a bell tower wasn't proposed is because in the industry bell towers are only thought of at churches and schools. Okay.
What's uh that's that's not our attorney uh look quickly at the lease to see if there's any obvious opportunities or
pitfalls there. What I would suggest though is that you would be looking at a lot more bulk. So because the tower has to you have the single support pole which is similar to what you see with those power lines behind the normal If you were to do a bell tower, you have three legs going all the way down. So it's got to be wide enough that you can fit a full array in there. Then you have your support poles. That all gets enclosed. And then the three
legs go down with its crossbow.
The principle that I'm having with this is the existing tower, somebody made the effort, and I understand they're maybe technological limitations for the equipment inside, but there was some effort made to disguise the tower and make it somewhat more attractive and I some we could put lipstick on a pig at the end of the day, it's too big. But They
have people have to live on it. They gotta look at it and so a flagpole was thought to be something a bit more attractive than this this thing with antennas all over it. And so what I'm looking for is is there something that we can do. There hasn't been anything offered here to try to disguise this other than
make it look like a fake Christmas tree. So there is another camouflage called a shrouded monopole. Um I can email a picture. Can we see what that is? Absolutely. I'll need to connect my computer to your system or email a picture over to Ms. Hernandez.
Let's do that. Whatever's easiest, Denise. I think Denise is still looking for the news.
If it can be emailed to me, that would be great.
So do we know I assume that somebody approached the county about renegotiating or do we know any information on that?
Well, I think what I'm hearing is that they approach the owner of the tower For the five pole site and we're not able to negotiate anything with that tower owner. Uh but I don't know that anybody approached the county about a different location in the park site. No, I understand. That's why I'm trying to see whether
we they were prohibited by the lease from doing that. Right. I misunderstood the part about so that I guess the tower company themselves was approached, which really had nothing to do with Applicant
saying they approached the tower company uh for the existing flypool tower about doing something on that site and we're told for whatever reason no.
And to clarify, the discussion approaching the tower company, the existing tower company, happens at a level above Vertical Bridge as an applicant. It happens with Team Mobile. So the national the carrier that's asking for this. Before they ever get vertical bridge involved, they have that discussion with the other tower company.
I would assume that'd be the most economical solution for T Mobile because they are it's existing infrastructure there already that would be cheaper to upgrade versus
it's much easier. Um you don't have to take and go through your National Environmental Policy Act compliance for a finding no significant impact. You don't have the same level of FAA scrutiny. You don't have to go through this and I love coming before you and speaking to you. No please don't take any offense. You don't have to take and go through clearing land, building driveways, even pouring a pad. It's literally what they do when they do what's called a drop
and swap. There's federal law that prohibits zoning review. Um it might be a site plan amendment, but they'll come in, they'll drill a case on, put the tower up next to the old one. Put the new tower there, move the equipment over. And at the base, there's a pad there, all they have to do is pull their existing cabinets and put new ones on. So it's a lot easier to take and replace the existing site.
So chances are T Mobile's already done their homework and this is kind of a last resort.
I'm willing to say that without any fear of committing fraud upon the tribunal.
But their site selection consultant saying he didn't explore another location on uh the county park site. I don't know whether we we were prevented from doing that or not, but we'll I don't have the lease there 'cause I guess Denise found it.
I've already sent it to you.
You do? Mega.
It's rounding the corner in China Maybe I have bad sales servers here. Sounds like they don't have good
coverage because I sent it at 239.
You if you want, you can forward it to all of us to need to see which one gets you first.
Yeah, I don't have it yet, Denise. I d I don't know why it's not coming through.
Well while she's looking that up, I just want to make everyone that the fact that the golf course plantation would be reimbursed on a monthly basis for leasing the this power, correct? That is
correct.
And the Pasco County schools do the same thing. They'll put a tower on their property. And we heard the gentleman came up early and talked about Chevelle. Well, if you are an individual who plays golf, and I think the comment was made earlier, that golf courses are
Uh they are high cost maintenance facilities and sometimes they go out of business because they can't maintain the cost. So this gives them some type, and I think you have to emphasize that, it does give them an income revenue source. So I just don't want that to be forgotten. I want it to stay out there but because as an individual and I know some of us may or may not play golf but it does help maintain the
golf courses. And that's all I'll say at this point that uh
Yeah, that was an impactful point David made and I think that was a good one. Yes. So
very important part if my eye. The answer on the lease question is important to the Planning Commissioner I am gonna need some time to figure this out. So you may want to table this item and go to another item if if if you want that if you want to vote on it without that answer, I'm happy for you to do that, but I just I can't do that on the fly. I need to look at these documents.
Yeah, well we could show
the picture of the other type of power I almost have addressing
I'm guessing that the shouted a shrouded monopole is just basically a larger flagpole. It's basically
a
fatter version.
A shrouded monopole has basically a round or triangular enclosure up at the top that has that's large enough to enclose the head frame, but it has no top or bottom, so that way air can flow through it. Um let me Get these pictures over to you.
It's basically the same monopole with uh canister at the top. To hide the antennas. To hide the antennas. But it doesn't really hide the tower.
No.
So let me forward this to Denise. Right.
Yeah, I mean to me when when these things come to us, I mean it We we we live in a society where some of this technology is we we all rely on it every day. Um but the question I ask myself when something like this comes is has everything been Done and investigated to make sure we minimize the impact that it has to the surrounding communities and surrounding residents. That's why I I think it's really important that we answer the question or know the answer to the question of has the property on the south side of twenty uh the south side of the road there, the county property, but has that been looked at? I
mean that 'cause that seems like a more viable location for something like this than where you're proposing it.
Understood.
So we can table it for what discussion later today or we can uh suggest a continuance. Which I think the applicant has already said she's welcome.
So we have a chance to look at the release. I don't know how David may need more time.
I'm not seeing the lease itself. I'm seeing memorandums of lease and some amendments to the lease.
That's what I was sent by facilities.
Okay, well this is not the actual lease. Okay. So I need the actual lease, the original lease. Um If you don't have that then And if it's important to the Planning Commission then maybe we need to I mean How it's I guess it's up to the applicant. Or do you mean do you would you rather us continue until we can get that answer or do you want us to wait until we do other public hearing and see if we get an answer before them?
Um in the interest I I am yours all afternoon in the interest of time. If it is possible to handle this by tabling, I would be happy to. If the Planning Commission prefers a continuance, of course I will I will follow the pleasure of the c planning commission, but if we can address this through tabling, I am happy to give you the rest of my afternoon and early evening.
Okay, well I can't guarantee you that we will have an answer from facilities before we get to the other items, but if you're willing to at least wait and give it a shot, I'm I'm okay with it at the Planning Commissioner Oakley
The the only comment I might make is most likely now it's conjecture, but most likely that uh Verizon or not Verizon that T Mobile has explore this option. Um so Well once again as he said it's a whole lot cheaper for them to uh
Well no I'm not Well okay, to be clear, I know that they've explored the option of or I trust they've explored the option of locating on the existing flagpole site. Right. I agree with them that it would be a lot cheaper to do. What I don't know is whether they explored the option of going to another location in the park. Because their site selection consultant is saying he didn't do that. Okay. So it may be because there's a non-compete, but I don't I don't have the least to confirm
that. So
I understand you right and if we were to approve this, you it was your belief that Verizon would jump to your new tower
when this is done. This is Matt and I John and yes, as someone who's in the industry. I'm the owner of the existing cow.
Why wouldn't I negotiate with you to do what you I need to keep you? Because if my other tenants gonna jump and then the county ordinance says I gotta tear down my tower, how's that in my best interest?
So
One moment while I compose my thoughts on that. Um
There are many tower companies that are caught in their own process. So One of the things is there's tower companies out there where you have to hold an entire committee meeting larger than this planning commission just to change out a fence. Um once a tower gets constructed, it often gets kind of frozen, especially
with a larger company. Um, so even though they're being confronted with a client that wants to do it, it goes into their process and then just gets mulled down because someone above them might be looking at a quarterly spreadsheet and says, we can't do that. That's
that's the kindest way I or that's that's the best I can say it without going into details.
Hopefully still and hopefully not getting blackballed by the industry.
I do also want to comment that within the notification I did notify American Tower, the tower owner of that tower, that this application was coming before the Planning Commission. So I did notice notice them through um certificate of mailing.
Did and you didn't receive any response from the I did not
receive any response, and that was done on March 8th.
This whole thing was when this technology first came out and towers were proliferating everywhere and there was backlash from the public. The purpose of the ordinance was to promote and almost force co-location of the barriers on the tower and now that I'm I'm seeing that the ordinance isn't working.
Of course I don't want to distract David. He's busy right now. But uh I'm wondering does our ordinance need to be tweaked? Do we have a way to go back to the current owner and say, hey, listen. You need to accommodate your tenants or or else.
Well I'm not sure that's really an ordinance issue, that's a lease issue. And again I don't have the lease. I mean it do the question is whether we would have mandated they do that in the lease. Oh.
Yeah, you know, and I think that'll be awfully hard to do because a as technology changes and ten years from now the com they come back to you and tell you you've got to redo your tower and it's gonna cost you two million dollars to do that. What if you you can't afford to do that? You know, it's it's it's not like you just have to build a bigger pole. Yeah, I think Um That would be very, very hard to Get somebody
to sign a lease like that.
Yeah, there's a reason why um codes, building codes are grandfathered in, you know, so as to not force the existing building owner to have to update their building whenever the code changes. Um
in some cases it it might be a you know, might be a write off for a bigger company. he beta better deal for them to actualize to to uh you know, to have to tear down their pole than to expand the new one. You know, so there's so many things that can come into play here. My one of my biggest concerns is is the one about the golf course. I know it's important to those residents to keep that course open. There it would be for me if
I lived there. So and I've seen so many times where residents have been asked to make small contributions to keep their courses open and they don't and then they become a a pine tree f uh forest. Yeah, then then the residents are upset. So
No, no, no.
This this golf course, you know you probably a few years back was bought out by a gentleman named Ace, and it was the otters or the residents who live there c concur with me. It was a it was an on sightly golf course. I mean they had grass probably two, three feet high. But So Mr. Chairman Mariano
technology we have now today. Twenty, thirty years ago, we did not have it. What we're gonna have twenty or thirty years down the road, I don't know. But we use this. We use this on our smart TVs. Towers are needed. Self-service in my community is poor. And when I talk to others in other communities throughout Pasco County and in different areas, it's not great. To me And I hate to be so blunt about this. This to me is kind of one of these no-brainers. We need
the tower. We're gonna debate it until the cows come home. But back back here when we first start the conversation, the tower is needed. Period. So, you know, I'm gonna be up front with you. I'm gonna vote for the tower. So Somebody wants to make a motion or anything like that. I'm going to vote for it. Towers are needed. Technology 20 years from now will probably make this tower obsolete. So
Mr Chair, I obviously the Planning Commission can vote based on the evidence you have today. That's totally within the province of the Planning Commission. If hearing from the golf course owner to to determine the financial impact on the golf course, or hearing about our lease of the existing tower site are important to the Planning Commission, it might be better just to go ahead and continue this to the next meeting in the city because at a minimum they don't have the landowner the owner of the golf course here. So if you
need to hear directly from the owner of the golf course about how important this lease is to him You're gonna have to continue to hear from him 'cause he's not here. Um that would also allow us to get information about our existing lease at on the county park site. But it's totally up to the Planning Commission. If you don't want to continue on a vote based on the evidence you have today, you're free to do that.
Well I I think I think the you know, I mean I think I can assume and I think we can all assume that if the c course owner was here, it'd be foolish for him to say it wasn't important to him. So I I'm assuming I'm gonna take it as a as a as a definite that he would say that. My my only question is really is you know, is there an alternative location? If there is, then well it's something we need to consider. If there's not, then I
think
to be clear though, it it's kind of a balancing act because if you're concerned about the golf course owner And him keeping that revenue, then you wouldn't want it moved to the county park site 'cause you you would lose that revenue. So No,
I know, but some of the people on the board here are are concerned about the location. I'm more concerned about the golf course.
I'm more concerned for the future Of tower prolifer, not so much this particular case. I with Peter, we all carry one of these things. This is a necessary evil in our society. What I'm more concerned is that we created an ordinance to try to stop the proliferation of towers or minimize it. And we have now a situation where that ordinance is failing us a little bit, so I'm
trying to think out in the future as to how we might fix that.
Yeah, and I think um John, I think we're it's gonna be a problem. No matter if we fix it today, we're gonna have to do it. We're gonna ha I mean I I mean in the current s scenario, even if we fix the ordinance, it's gonna be out of it it's gonna be out of date in another ten years. It's always gonna be a problem. And uh so Yeah, you know. We who would have ever thought we would have had a telephone on
our wrist. You
know in the you know in in the d in the early days of cable T V. The county gave a franchise to the cable company. Alright, okay, the cable company didn't perform, didn't do what the county didn't deliver the service to the residents. Out goes the cable company and we find a new one, new franchisee. So curiosity question, and maybe there may be laws against it, I don't know, but why don't we do such things with say cell phone towers? May I be heard?
So once you start so the whole idea of a franchise system is against the federal scheme of a deregulated, highly competitive market as embodied in the Telecom Act of nineteen ninety-six and the case law and the S L C C orders that have interpreted it since that time. Okay.
We also can't have cable franchises anymore either.
So we're preempted either by state or federal law on having franchises for These types of providers. Cable, telephone, Self service, etc.
Well I I think another point that serves the the continuous discussion is that clearly property value is an issue to the property owner. They came up and talked to us and we've had the applicant standards say that they would engage a firm to put together an appraisal uh a a study of that. So I mean and that could be done within the next month if we were to continue for a month. Do you think that they could be ready to testify at
that point? I believe likely yes. Um, understanding that, you know, life comes up for everyone.
Yep. But just a reminder that the H O A
had no negative impact about this. In fact they had some approvals that on it. They wanted to move forward. Moving forward is my term. They had no objections.
Correct. So the Plantation Palms HOA over all the plantations heard this at one of their HOA board meetings and gave support. That's in your record. And Mr. Hutchinson can talk to that if you'd like to hear more because he was the one who made the presentation to the HOA board. That was before they started any of the due diligence proceeding down this. So their first stop was to check in with the Plantation Palms HOA.
Well I I know full well what this course used to be and I've benefited from playing on it currently. So I I appreciate what the owner's done. I'm just representing the landowner here as far as making sure that we provide them the information that they they need.
I'd say the only thing we need to consider is is if we're going anywhere else, then it's not going to benefit the golf course, which then in the future could potentially jeopardize a golf course which would jeopardize property values a whole lot more than the uh especially on the whole of the association than the tower. So it it's either gonna be there on that property on that golf course property or it's gonna be somewhere else. And if it's anywhere else it's gonna not benefit that property owner and that golf course. So that's really a thing
for consideration. Um and and that kind of makes the rest of these points kind of moot determining where else it could go. And uh i if we're okay with uh that property owner not receiving that revenue then then we can investigate the rest of
it. We haven't heard any stories that the golf course was the golf course was bought. Right. Okay. And they've rescued it from bankruptcy. We haven't heard that the new golf course owner was on the verge of bankruptcy.
I doubt highly I I I I doubt highly that the current guy that bought the golf course bought it on speculation that he was gonna have a cell tower on his property and have that revenue.
Um I mean to me the biggest question is i is there opportunity to move the to a different property to the south that has less impact on the existing residents? And it doesn't
sound like we can answer that question today. I mean we can sit here and talk about this for another hour if we want, but I mean to me I think it's just i it it needs to be continued if we don't have that answer.
I think based on what everybody said that we I would like to hear a motion for continuance. I'll make a motion. Um
just for the record, we are agreeable to a motion for continuance. Thank you. Thank you. I'll second that.
We have a motion and a second to continue it to the next meeting in Dade City.
Which is May um May fourth at one thirty in Dade City.
Yeah. I'm gonna I'm well I'm gonna vote no on the continuance up front. To me it's gonna be the same conversation we're having today in on May the fourth. There's gonna not be any changes. The golf course can use the revenue just as the school board used the re can use uh does use the revenue from that. Just as I would if I own a piece of property, I could use the revenue. This is something that needs to be done. Cell towers Or
the progress that we have today and down the road it will be something else. Twenty, thirty years ago, it was telephone polls, it was other things that need to go on personal property or individual property or public property. We heard the comment about franchising the cable system. I don't know if there is a cable company out there today. I I know. I don't think there are. We all have, for the most part, not all of us, made an assumption there, but for the
most part, smartphones, I'm sorry, smart TVs are in use today and in many phones, just as the computers are. Remember we used to have computers that had a modem? Today they don't. They go straight. straight to a wireless system. So to me, we're gonna be having the same conversation on the fourth of May that we're having today, in my opinion. I call the vote. So call this motion.
Okay. We have
a motion and a second. I believe.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, open for comments.
Um so um I I tend to uh agree with with Peter the the I end we understand we're property owners too and we understand nobody wants any kind of an ISO or we don't want power lines, we don't want cell phone towers. Um I I totally get that. That said the there is a cost to inconveniences that we that we have and and the conveniences that we all enjoy and it's not then just enjoyed by the property owners that are nearby but but uh
everyone else neighboring. Um We we've had a lot of discussion in the Planning Commission about infrastructure issues uh that have become come before this board. Um People have complained about traffic at certain intersections, for example, and and complain why didn't we widen the roads before this happened and this is this was congested. This is a very similar situation. You know, while there may not be problems with cell phone service and technological access now um if those improvements aren't made
with the growth that's going on in the area, um w we'll come into that issue and that that will affect negatively not just um people nearby the tower but everybody in those neighboring uh neighborhoods as well as potentially access to emergency services. Um
Obviously there's limited areas that this tower can go to cover that particular um Zone. Um But if it were me and I had the choice of seeing revenue uh either go back to the county through a lease or go back to a private owner, I'd rather see it go to a private owner. Um and so uh for that reason I think I'd vote no to the continuous as well.
Our motion please.
Yeah, uh the motions was for c to continue to the m to the May fourth meeting and uh and we have a second.
John John Moody and then I seconded. Is it close?
Yeah, still I'm a l it was a co motion. So
anyway, we have a we have a motion on floor. I'd just like to say that um I tend to agree with Pete and Derek. Um But I'm gonna vote for the motion because I think we have some members on the board that have have valid concerns about the co about location and about protecting the neighborhood. So I don't think a thirty day continuance is gonna hurt anybody. It'll only serve to satisfy
certain people and certain minds and and give everybody a fair hearing. So um Just want you to know why I'm vote voting the way I'm voting. That's all. So
Having uh had discussion uh and nobody else um all in favor of uh the continuum signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye And against? Nay? No? Nay. Nay. All right, let's have a roll call please. For uh in favor of the motion.
Mr. J. Girardi?
I
Since this is a conditional use I wasn't voting. No, he would not vote on this matter.
And Chairman Mariano.
Alright.
So that is in total. Um we have
All right. So the motion carries to continue to the mar to the May fourth. meeting, right? Thank
you for your time. I will see you in May. Thank you.