Conditional Use (Regular) - BB Agritourism, LLC/1 Source Towers II, LLC/Verizon Wireless - 188-Foot Above-Ground-Level Monopole Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) in an A-C Agricultural District - North Central Pasco County - East Side of Bellamy Bros Boulevard, Approximately One- Quarter Mile North of the Intersection of Bellamy Bros Boulevard and St Joe Road File Number PDD23-CU28
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, Aug 3, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Aug 3, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 56m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 61% of 277 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Alright, Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. As they're bringing up that PowerPoint, we're going on to item P8. Which is PDD 23CU28. It's for conditional use for 188-foot above-ground level monopole wireless communications facility in an AC Agricultural District. The applicant is BB Agritourism LLC One Source Towers 2, LLC Verizon Wireless. So it's being proposed as a conditional use for a 188-foot above-ground level, which
is a 180-foot wireless communication facility with an eight-foot lightning rod, suitable for the co-location of three additional carriers, which is proposed to be located along the southwest corner of the property within a 3,600 square foot fence compound area and a 7200 square foot leased area altogether. which is located within a 58.46 acre parcel that is zoned AC agricultural and has a future land use of AG. Located on the east side of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, approximately a quarter mile
north of the intersection of St. Joe Road and Bellamy Brothers. The location is in north central Pasco County and it's in the northeast Pasco County rural area.
This is the existing zoning. It's AC Agricultural. To the north is an expired MPUD, which was known as Saran Ranch.
The future land use on the parcel is AG and to the north is AGR.
This is a um aerial of the property, access to the overall site of Storbellamy Brothers, and access to the compound lease areas proposed through a twenty-foot-wide access and utility easement. So a general overview of the surrounding area. The subject property is the location of Snow Cat Ridge, which is the Winter Play Park. To the east is Treehoppers and the Fall Festival where they have Screamagaddon. You've got the Bellamy Brothers Trail that goes along Bellamy Brothers
Boulevard but not in front of this parcel. St. Joe Road for showing where it's located and then the following application which is CU2329 it shows the distance from the application to the tower that you will hear after this item which is approximately 1900 feet southwest or so.
This is the concept plan and what the um an elevation of the tower.
The applicant, in accordance with the land development code, held a neighborhood meeting. Um the application was sent to um Omnicomp Consulting Group, which is our RF engineer, Mr. Mongzingo, who recommended approval, and this comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
Okay, thank you. Applicant present.
Welcome back.
Good afternoon, Chairman Mariano, and it's a pleasure to be before you again. I am Matt Chinaya John, 935 Main Street, Suite C4, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. As a point of order, I have requested 20 minutes for my presentation in chief.
Do you heard I come before uh I am appearing on behalf of OneSource Towers 2 LLC, the property owner, and Verizon Wireless. Um And I also have Bill Compton with Verizon Wireless here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have regarding Verizon's RF need. I'm going before you today with staff and county engineering consultant recommendations of approval of a conditional use to allow 188-foot-tall monopoles communication
tower upon parcel 24, 24, 19, a block of 40, 00600, 0030 off of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. This property is developed as Snow Cap. Ridge and it is adjacent to a parcel that has treehoppers and the um Scream again, agro tourism park.
The monopole is intended to establish raw indoor and in vehicle coverage in the area. as well as provide traffic capacity necessary to soak up traffic from um from Snow Cat Ridge as well as the Fall Festival Park and Treehoppers. In all aerials that I show you today up will be north. So this is your property appraiser aerial. And this just kind of acquaints with the area. You can see Bellamy Brothers Boulevard runs to the middle and then makes
a sidestep and continues to run north and goes a diagonal off to the west. You can see St. Joe's Road goes off to the east from Bellamy Brothers where it makes the sidestep to the west. The orange arrow is the approxim is the approximate location of the monopole. One thing to keep in mind here is that as you extend out from the parent parcel, You'll notice that surrounding uses, particularly to the north,
the closest residential uses and the like, have mature tree coverage between them and the monopole.
This is a closer view. And I apologize the snow park's not shown on there. Your property appraiser just uh I just was not able to get a more current aerial from your property appraiser. But this starts to show the parent parcel. You can see the east side is woodlands and the like and some wetlands. To the north and to the west are mature trees that exist along the property line that help provide additional buffering over and above your code. What you can't see at this aerial is that there's also a perimeter buffer
that was provided by the snow park as part of their conditional use approval.
Here's the closer view. You can actually see some of that planted buffer immediately south. It's a rhythmic pattern along the property line. And then it's also supplementing a couple breaks in the western mature route.
Um so to the north and northeast is Snow Park, then you have agricultural land. To the south are south of the Snow Park's perimeter buffer, then agricultural lands, mature trees along Bellamy Brothers Rideaway Edge. Then primarily pasture land with houses mixed in. To the east are woods on the Snow Park property. Uh then the scream again. Fall festival property. uh then heavily wooded parcel with a mix of agricultural uses and large lot
ranchette houses. To the west of the Snow Park western buffer. Then uh which consists of both a planted buffer and mature trees along the property along the property line. Uh then Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, then large lot ranchette houses under canopy trees. And as I said before, mature trees exist along most prop almost all property lines immediately around the project.
Okay.
You heard the parent parcel of zone agricultural or the future land use designation of agricultural communication towers are allowable in this zoning via the conditional use process to give you the oversight necessary to make sure the the use is tailored to the area. This is your zoning map from your GIS. This is your future land use map from your GIS. This matches with what county staff says.
I'm showing an example picture of a monopole. And a monopole is a style of communication tower that's one support pole. with external mountain external antennas mounted on a head frame. but no guy wires or ironworks extending out from it. This gives space up top and airflow for um the antennas and their radios to operate. Mm. The monopole is proposed to be located near the southwestern portion of the parent parcel. This
is sheet Z1 from the plans. You can see that it shows the location of the monopole relative to the parent parcel. Uh the monopole is in the side the Let me see if I've got there we are. The monopole is inside the square compound. You can also see that the planted buffer that exists on the parent parcel is shown. Off to the west is Bellamy Brothers Boulevard and then you can see the ranch head houses. There are
no existing but or there are no approved but unconstructed towers within fifteen hundred feet of this monopole that is important under your code.
Uh the monopole will employ fall zone technology, so in the unlikely event of structural failure, it will not collapse, but rather it'll fold over upon itself at a pre-engineered. failure point. um and will be completely contained within a 75 foot radius on the parent parcel. There's a signed and sealed fall zone letter included with the in the original submittal folder. The monopole will host Verizon Wireless's antennas. They have provided an agent of record affidavit. And of course they are here to answer any questions that you have. It
will be able to support antennas for three additional co-locations for a total of four users, should additional users wish to co-locate on the tower.
This arrow shows the model pole, and then you can see the yellow circle is the 1500 foot radius under your code. This is sheet Z2 just showing the compound. And this shows that the compound has been designed with enough space. You can see the four rectangles within it to support the ground equipment for up to four carriers. The ground equipment essentially essentially contains traffic cabinet traffic signal size cabinets that hold computers.
They have air conditioners. and a small package generator to keep the system online during an emergency such as a hurricane.
The magenta circle is the fall zone radius. This is the elevation. One of the things that one source requested was to provide was to make use of the existing vegetation on the parent parcel in lieu of a planted buffer. and um also provide a white vinyl fence which is not required under your code. as
additional um Over and above the coat. If you choose if you decide that it is necessary to have a planted buffer at the base of the compound, there is adequate space reserved around the perimeter of the compound, and we would be agreeable to that. Yeah. Verizon will on this elevation, Verizon will be located at the top with a height of 188 feet is to the top of the lightning rod, the monopole. We have received our FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation, as
well as the supersedence replacing the first one. Uh this monopole will be completely dark at night. It'll have a dull gray finish.
I'm going to move through the photo simulations now.
I'm going to generally be following the map that you see, so we'll start to the north, then we'll show resident from residential perspectives to the south, and then we'll show it from the intersection of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard and St. Joe Road. The first shot is from Bellamy Brothers Boulevard looking southeast. You can see that the monopole is completely obscured in this view by the trees along the perimeter of the parent parcel and the Bellamy Brothers Boulevard right-of-way. That's why a yellow line has been added
because the model would not show. The second view is the clearest view of the monopole you'll see today. Um and this is from Bellamy Brothers Boulevard looking east. And you can see there is visibility there, you could, but you can also see in the foreground. the planted buffer exists that will eventually grow up To provide buffering, and you can see that the monopoles scales within the Bulkan scale of other objects in the foreground. Uh
this was to look this was looking for a gap in the trees. Again you can see trees on the right, you can see the edge of a branch on the left. When you go outside this gap you return to what you saw in the first simulation, which is almost essentially nothing.
This shot is from Bellamy Brothers at Ernest Croft Road looking north. So this is the nearest residential lot pattern to the south. And you can see not visible. And then this is from Ernest Croft Road looking north and their monopole is peaking up above the tree line just a little bit.
The final shot is from the intersection of St. Joe Road and Bellamy Brothers Boulevard and you can see that the monopole is peaking up above the tree line, but it scales down within other objects in the view shed such as those power lines to the left.
These photo simulations were presented at the community meeting that we held on June 22, 2023, and our neighbors who attended had no issues with them. They were fine with them.
Alright, I'm moving on to the RF package. And this is uh meant to establish reliable in building And in vehicle coverage. uh for Verizon Wireless in the area. This is all in your record. Uh but this is basically a primer on um capacity, location, and height. From a height perspective, a coverage footprint works just like those recessed scans over your heads. They
make a circle of light on the ground. The higher up they are, the larger the circle. It's just not as intense. The lower you the more you lower the recessed can closer to the floor, the smaller the circle becomes, the more bright the light becomes. And that's a pretty good analogy for the trade-off of coverage area versus signal strength to handle capacity. Um the other thing to keep in mind is that Verizon fights the same
concurrency battles that you fight with your roads. We're trying to keep up with traffic that's ever expanding.
Alright.
These are the surrounding Verizon towers in the area that are trying to serve the area. And you can see the map. Uh this has all been reviewed by your outside expert. The blue towers are the nearest Verizon handoffs, and I know that it's kind of hard to see those blue dots up against the um Up against the aerial map, but it does kind of give a feel. And then you have your yellow mark, which is the proposed particle.
You can see the coverage area. Um So right now there is a coverage gap in the area around Snowcat Ridge, and this was confirmed at the community meeting by our neighbors. And then here is the proposed coverage and you can see that solves the gap. Lack of capacity has also been experienced by the neighbors during the on-season at Snow Cat Ridge.
Um Verizon will be in compliance with all state and federal local requirements and are operated in conformance with the Federal Communications Commission. If you need to hear that from Mr Compton instead of myself, he is available.
Just to run through housekeeping, the monopole will be a dull gray finish. It'll be completely dark at night. We held that community meeting on June the 22nd, 23. We received positive response from our neighbors. Um Which in today's day and age is a relatively rare item, t relatively rare experience for me to have as a zoning attorney.
Um to our knowledge no members of the public have objected. I know that another tower application in the area has objected to our application. They've provided materials. And I will reserve time for I'd like to reserve time for rebuttal to address that because I'm sure more stuff will come up during their three minutes.
Um But we Finally, I'd just like to bring your attention to nine one one call statistics. In 2021, 83.9% of all 911 calls in Pasco County came from cellular numbers, and that shows that reliable wireless service isn't a luxury. It is a necessity. I can walk you through the conditional use elements if you'd like, but I specifically adopt into my presentation by reference your expert staff's analysis of your code
and comprehensive plan, and also direct you to my multiple narratives in the record as well. With that, I um that concludes my presentation. We do respectfully request that you recommend approval of the monopine or the monopole as stated in the staff report with all of staff's proposed conditions of approval. Um I and Mr. Compton are available for any questions that you may have and I reserve remaining time for my direct for my rebuttal, please. Thank you. All right, great.
I have one question.
Yes.
So could you when Verizon is the co-applicant on this, how does that work? Are they Assuming the tower is approved, are they committed to go On your tower? In other words
Say we approved this tower ran the one that's after it. Is Ryan Verizon have to
go on yours as opposed to the other one? This is Mattaniah John and correct. So there is um a master agreement that one source has, as well as site agreements that execute upon that. So basically the way the arrangement is, is Verizon says go forth and get this tower. power of this design at this height for us and we will execute site leases from you. So they are the co-applicant and they have provided the RF package, um, the letter
of intent, as well as um
Yeah. You're the applicant's arising, but do you know if PT and T, T Mobile, others have
s other gaps in this area? I do not know at this this is Mattanaya John. I do not know at this time. Um it is rare while I have duff brought towers with multiple anchor carriers before this dais before, that is still a rare thing in the um in the tower world, relatively speaking, over the volume of towers. So, for example, I'm currently carrying over a hundred towers
across Florida and Georgia right now, and I I think I've had three this year that had multiple carriers. And the reason is the business practice is that There's one carrier who sits as the anchor carrier, and they're willing to hold the tower company's hand all the way through because the tower company's building it for them. And then um the other carriers just watch and see, essentially. Once they see a tower is approved, then they hop onto it. So, anyways.
Okay. Any other questions?
Um I apologize if that was a five dollar answer to a one dollar question. No, you answered the question, thank you.
It's not like better more than a one dollar question. A
six dollar answer to a two dollar question. We'll keep the margin the same.
Ms. John, could you go back to your coverage maps quickly? Absolutely. I think that's the first time that we we saw that so just Okay. So the red is obviously your d the deficient area.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
My apologies for um my hyper contextuality.
Red is
unreliable coverage, green is reliable coverage.
Those are what's currently trying to reach out to Snow Cat Ridge, right? And they're getting But Uh when the traffic they're also trying to serve the areas around them, which we all know are growing. Um so once Snow Cat Ridge goes into its on season, it very much burdens those four as well.
And like you said, those those are specifically the horizon hand also we're looking at the the blue the blue dots.
Correct. The blue dots are all Verizon Towers and the four on the east side of the yellow dot. So there's one to the north.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm. And then you have one near I seventy five, near the crook in it, before you head up towards the lakes. And then you have uh I forget the name of this road, but you have another one to the east of I-75, and then you have another one down on fifty-two just east of I-75. Arguably there's a fifth one down to the um southwest along fifty two. But these guys are trying to reach in. and grab this area. So they're All the
traffic that this tower picks up is traffic that doesn't go onto those towers. Again, that's not something I can really map. T Mobile's been trying a little bit with things like best sector mapping, but they're kind of the only ones who do that at this point.
So that's one of the reasons why the hole was kind of um determined was because of the recent development of Snow Cat Ridge and um some of the other seasonal activities like the Screamageddon and so forth.
Correct. Um that definitely stepped up the need and brought in the capacity aspect of it.
Did Snow Cat Ridge approach you all or did you all approach Snow Cat Ridge?
Um
I believe as as I recollect and I apologize, I am not a hundred percent today. uh one source approached Snowcat Ridge.
Okay.
Um the development process itself is informed by Verizon. So OneSource doesn't spend resources on bringing a tower to market like this.
I just wasn't sure if because they have all these events there, if they if their customers were complaining about Lack with cell service and
then they approach Verizon or So That's actually an interesting thing that came up during the community meeting, uh, because the owner of Snowcat Ridge attended our community meeting. and the neighbors um Had evidently been talking to him about their service that they were remarking that their service drops off during the on season. So I think everyone is pleased to see that One, the the
neighbors will have reliable service ongoing. Snowcat Ridge I'm sure is happy to have reliable service for their customers. and from talking with the neighbors they also feel like The tower supports SnowCap Ridge, continuing to be a facility it is instead of perhaps closing and becoming tracked housing someday.
Okay.
Um that's the best I can tell you on those sentiments.
Very good. You're holding out pretty well so far. Thank you. You don't feel well, I think you can tell that. Uh is does Mr. Compton wanna add anything or does anybody have any questions? Mr. Compton.
I think he doesn't want to get next to me, so I'll put my I will put my mask on and I will have him come up and just give his name and address for the record and state whether I jumped off the rails at all.
Okay.
Please come up.
Thank you.
Hi, William Compton, RF Design Engineer for Verizon Wireless. Address is 7701 East Telecom Park, Temple Terrace. Wonderful job as usual by Matsanaya. Um I guess the only thing I I could probab possibly add, I was hoping she would say, was basically we're we're a lot of times driven by customer complaints. So when customers go out and find those holes, they they don't go to Snow Cat Ridge and say, hey, why isn't your cell phone service working? They they call our customer support. So yes, we get lots of complaints in that area. And then the other demand that
we're seeing is COVID has made a lot of people start working from home. Right. So we're seeing a lot of use in these remote areas where people are basic where where they're internet service basically. And that that demand just keeps on growing and growing. And
Mr. Compton, before you step away, would you please state your position with Verizon Wireless?
Sure, I'm a senior network design engineer and traffic engineer.
And what is your education?
Uh I have a bachelor's degree in electronics engineering technology from University of Central Florida.
And what is your experience?
I've been doing this since um ninety eight, so twenty s something years.
Two minutes. Can I ask you a question? Yes, of course. So how important is it to you that you be in the middle of that Red area. I mean, could you for example if you were If the tower were further west, outside the red area, does that could you still cover the red area or do you have to sort of be in the middle of the red area?
Wonderful question, yes. Um th just like we put in our our slides, you know, there there's capacity and there's coverage. Coverage means your phone has bars on it. Capacity means your your phone actually has access to resources. And the way that works is basically the closer you are to a cell tower A self-transmitter, more the more resources you get. It's a technology that's been out since 4G, now they're containing it 5G, and then I'm sure they're gonna carry it into 6G. It's called adaptive modulation. I don't want to go too deep, but basically it's the analogy would be you
and I standing this close to each other, or even closer, I'd be able to show you a piece of paper, you'd be able to read from it, and we'd be able to talk to each other eye to eye. We'd be able to, you know, a lot more communication happens. versus me being a mile away where it'd be maybe you'd be able to see me wave at you or something like that. There's different ways that the cell tower and the cell phones connect with each other and the better signal level that they have, in other words the closer they are to that base station, the more information we can get through at the same amount of time. So again, adapt to my horizons
customers will get better service where you where this tower is proposed to be located.
Everybody within a certain radius around it was everybody's gonna get better capacity, faster service, that kind of thing. That tapers off as you go further and further away from the site. That is correct. And that that works for any of our cell sites and Matt's and I already alluded to it, that's the reason why this area coverage becomes a very big traffic demand on us because each one of those sites that's around the perimeter. I'm really just asking
was it coincidental that your tower is right in the middle of this road area or was that intentional? That's what I'm really asking.
U usually it's intentional. There
there's
again th there's there we try and go for coverage but also we saw that the Snow Cat Ridge happening which tells us we want to be near that for that same exact reason. We want to put the capacity where the customers are. So it kinda drove us in that area. So yes, we we wouldn't build it an a a site like this. We would try and go for the coverage hole and the capacity at the same time. It's a win win for us.
Okay, thank you. You're
welcome.
Okay, uh do we have any questions from the dice?
Right.
All right, is there anything else? I know you want to withhold time to respond to any questions. So we'll see if anybody here has a question from the from the public. Yes sir. If they do then you'll have an opportunity to come up and respond. Okay, so is there anybody on the sheet that wants is on a Talk to us about from the public.
That signed up for this one specifically. Um I don't have anyone, but I do believe that there are some folks that do want to speak to this one. But it they did not sign up for that one specifically.
Is there anybody who wants to speak to this that is not on the list?
You signed up for P9, not for P eight. Oh I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry, it just doesn't look like an eight. I apologize.
Does one of you want to speak first or you don't care? Okay.
He's with me.
All right. Well he's with you.
Good afternoon. Uh Deborah Martahue, uh Martahu Land Use Law, 1036 23rd Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida. Um this uh application is not properly noticed or scheduled for this meeting. Um it was glossed over in your report as well as the presentation. that the alternative standards request to waive all of the landscaping in its entirety, that process has not been completed, has
not been applied for, there hasn't been a fee or review. Obviously staff knows how to do that. I've given in advance of this hearing several BCC resolutions adopting an ad as part of the staff report that administrative alternative standards review that cites at least nine different applications as support for justification of a particular one, the most recent one. They are associated with public facilities, schools, and
the Pasco County facility. So they were based, they went through all of the criteria. There's many criteria in that alternative standards. You have a fee for it in the BCC resolution. Your relief procedures in Chapter 400 do not list a waiver as a relief procedure for the landscape requirements. it is alternative standards. And that review process didn't
And I understand that you can say, well, we'll do the landscaping. Well that landscape plan needs to be reviewed by staff before it comes before you and that has not occurred. So we're just asking that both applicants be treated equally. In every step of this process, my client has been uh has case numbers. That were assigned. And we filed before this this uh particular application. And yet
when we come to hearing It's the first time. this case gets put ahead of my client. And why is that important to you? It's important because you can see these towers are close to each other. And If one is approved, presumably the other one might not be needed. So there's
a little bit of a little bit of a little
It's actually I think nineteen hundred and sixty feet. Which should be typical. I of course have been doing this
No but you're saying that the proposed the distance between the two proposed towers here is nineteen hundred and sixty?
Correct.
But doesn't our ordinance only limit the obligation to seek colocation to fifteen hundred feet?
It does.
Well, Mr your RF consultant likes to use a mile. And I'm not talking about I
don't care what he likes to do,
we have an
ordinance.
I I understand. And and that's fine if we're gonna be treated um in that respect. Ma it still doesn't it still does not eliminate the issue that this application is before you without that process regarding the landscaping um having been conducted. So it's not properly before.
How is your application affected by landscaping?
Listen, uh in my pre app on on October thirteenth, And you'll see in in our substantive presentation we have a very heavily wooded site far more wooded than this one. and the zoning administrator told us that she would not approve a landscape waiver, that the board does not receive landscape waivers very well. So even though we have lots of uh vegetation, we did not even make that request knowing that Ms.
Hernandez told us that she would not support that in our pre-app. And I have contemporary emails to support that. And Uh excuse
me, I before you go any further, are you here to talk about the application we just heard? Are you here to argue your application?
No, and that's why I'm trying to Because I
don't want to hear about your application right now. I understand. If you have a uh an objection to their application, make it please, so we can get on with it.
So I have a question about your objection. So I guess my question's for Denise. Is
Does our code require that you submit an alternative standard application with the conditional use or could you do it
No, the code doesn't require that. And what is being explained by Ms. Martahue is that the the require the request to not have any landscaping at all. And those came from the District School Board of Pasco County because of say school design guidelines, that they cannot have any any um obstructions where that you have a clear line of sight from one side of the school to the other side of the school. the the uh b availability to be able to use existing landscaping in lieu of placing a landscape buffer is uh is
a staff level approval. It's not an alternative standard. It's not an alternative standard approval.
So but I guess my my timing question is even if It was an alt standard.
Could is it something they can seek after the se after the conditional use is approved?
If it wasn't all standard which it's not, they could seek it after the conditional use is approved. We do have to go
through
staff level approval.
Well that's my my main question is if they could I'm just trying to figure out whether that's a procedural problem today, because if they can seek a deviation on landscaping at PSP Then We could just take the position as of today they're complying with the code. I mean the Uh if there's no alternative standard before us We just can't approve an alternative standard. They would just meet code. Unless they get one at the time of PSP. Is
that accurate?
That's accurate, but it's it's not an alternative standard. I understand
it's not an alternative standard, but I would say if it was
If it was, they can do it at the time of the preliminary site plan.
It doesn't have to be done with this conditional use. That
is correct.
Okay.
Mr. Goldstein, I respectfully disagree. If you look up your section 407.5, it specifically says that you have to submit it either in advance of or in conjunction with your development request. That is what your code says. That is a
zoning request.
But
but there's another development request after this
one. With your you with your development request. That's a zoning request.
There's multiple requests that occur in the county. So There's this one, this is the conditional use approval. They still have to come in for a site plan approval, which Mr. Tippman will tell you if he got up that Usually when you're requesting an alternative standard it's with the site plan approval.
Conditional use. Conditional use or zoning approval. Right.
I'm just telling you what your code says and it is associated with the conditional use. And this is historically.
Or prior to. And every other Show
me the exact language where it says it has to be submitted with the conditional use.
If you, I'm sure you have um your code with you. Um
And your tier three checklist
Says where there's a waiver.
Compliance with all provisions of section one oh two, including section nine oh five point two, is mandatory. Um in the provision of 407.5, it says that um the all here let me go through my
Bear with me here.
I
think we are.
The alternative standard.
World. So why is the Psp not a development application?
I guess what I'm asking is why why on every every BCC resolution that I've given you and just limited to communication towers.
Oh so just
I'm not
I'm not disagreeing that somebody
they have all had to go through this process, but not this one.
Let me explain to you. how development works in Pasco, okay, because I've seen this I see all these approvals. There's two steps to our process. There's the zoning process, and yes, there are sometimes When developers or applicants request deviations at the time of zoning. I'm not saying so it can happen. Some in the ones you reference with the school board, they wanted it done with their conditional use approval. But I do not read four seven point five
is preventing you from applying for it With your site plan approval. Because that's also a development application, and that's usually when they request the alternative standards. is at the time a slight plan. If you want Mr Tippen to get up and testify to that, we can have him do that, but I'm telling you that's a fact. That Normally when you're submitting a request for alternative standards, it's with the site plan. Two engineers on the Planning Commission that can probably tell you the same thing. But that's how it works. So there's no requirement in
our code that you submit an alternative standard application with your conditional use approval.
I'm going by all the B C C resolutions.
I'm going by the code. You you said it says conditional use. It doesn't say conditional use there. It says development application. Yeah, just
I'll wait for rebuttal, but I thought that I heard the applicant say that if there was some objection to landscaping they were willing to provide it anyway. So I think the whole point is moot and I'm trying to figure out how landscaping around this tower should we uh should we vote to approve it affects the next application.
Well I think you could approve it just with them complying with our code, which is they'll provide the landscaping, which the applicant has said they will provide the landscape.
But my point is that Denise's point is it's not an alt standard, but even if it was They could apply for
a wonderful example would be if we did a Euclidean zoning. We cannot condition a Euclidean zoning, therefore they can't come in and ask for an alt standard as part of the Euclideans. They do it with MPUDs all the time, but they can't do it with the Euclidean zoning. So where they go for the alt standard is when they do their preliminary site plan or preliminary development plan. You're exactly correct. So
And anyway my my point is I don't see how that's a procedural defect because they can apply for it later if they want to.
Do you have anything else you want to bring
up?
Um I submitted everything in the record that I found to be irregularities. I know I'm over my time and I appreciate your time in listening. Thank you.
Thank you.
I think we have one more person that wants to come up.
Yeah, please give us your name and address.
Hello everyone, my name is Tim O'Shaughnessy. I'm the owner of North American Towers, 1123 Solano Avenue, Winter Park, Florida, 32789. It's basically you got two towers, right? Besides all the stuff and the weeds and all that stuff, you got two towers right by each other. Um Mr. Compton's looked at our tower already. It's I I gave him a 175 but he looked at we're a 185 tower. So you can ask him if he could use either one of the towers. My thing would be If you approve both of us. Approve
of the same conditions for both towers. And maybe even put a stipulation of whoever gets the lease first from the co applicant. If we're approved the next gender, I'm not guaranteeing that. If we whoever gets to approve uh the lease from the your co applicant, Verizon or ours, then that would be the person who wins the tenant. They're both they're both in the same spot. They're gonna both so I've talked to T Mop. T MO wants the communication tower in that area. Tak a dish. Um W everybody that's a great
area. It's a good developer. I don't build for one carrier. I build for everybody. That's I can't wouldn't last in this business if I would build for one person. This is a great location, great area. It's heavily needed. I can give you that stuff, but that'll be my only thing to say, you know, both condition on both are the same. And whoever gets the lease first on the whether they call it. Applicant wins the wins the deal. I mean that's not
excuse. How many towers do you have in Pasco County now? What sir? How many towers do you have in Pasco County?
Uh we have one other development going through right now. Okay. So
you have no towers?
Not in Pasco. Maples, Orange County
similar. I'm asking you about Pasco. Okay. So what what's your plan to connect to the network if you don't get Verizon?
Mr. Chair, I don't think it's proper to be discussing the merits of his application with this one. But can I ask a reading question, Dave?
Yeah, okay. Am I correct in my reading of 1002 in the land development code? That the only if the towers fall within fifteen hundred feet of each other would one be tried would we all have this problem of one tenant being forced to try to co locate on the other tower. It s sounds to me like these are separated by more than fifteen hundred feet and we I don't know whether
we will, but we could legally approve both towers, and neither one of these applicants would have the obligation to seek colocation with the other. I
think that's accurate but I'm gonna ask Denise andor her consultant to weigh in. I I I do know that the reason they were recommending denial of the other tower had nothing to do with the proximity to this tower.
B so so it goes. And I suspected that this fighting over the tenant was the reason That we were gonna hear these two simultaneously.
We're gonna get to your case. The point here is, is If we vote to approve the current applicant's case, it doesn't foreclose you the opportunity to have your tower approved.
I'm okay with that.
And I would tell you that the time to talk about your conditions is during your case. And I'm smart enough to read the agenda and the MEO packet and I already picked up on the difference in conditions and we'll have a discussion about that when we get to your case.
Sounds good. But Denise, is that accurate that Could they be both be approved?
That's correct, yes it's accurate.
Okay, okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Okay.
Match Nai John again.
Um so running through. Um as far as alternative standards requests, to be clear, at no point did we ask for complete relief from your landscape buffer requirements, we asked to use the existing landscape buffer requirement, which I submit is different from those school cases that were provided to you. However, that is moot because we are are willing to provide the landscape, the full code required landscape buffer, should you so wish to have it.
In the record, when you reviewed your board books, you may have seen that there was various exchanges of emails. They Other applicant has gone through a variety of reasons to try to move us off this agenda. And I do apologize for the drama of that. Uh what I don't apologize for is being good at my job. Uh we work very hard and chase reviewers around the state of Florida and we just follow up. If you want to hear more
on that, I do have my planner, Aya Abu Nada, with me. She could tell you that a significant amount of her time is calling reviewers saying, Hey What's the status of our review? Um let's see.
You heard from Verizon? that they intend to use this tower. They have provided paperwork to that extent, including an engineered study, An agent of record affidavit, so That's been signed and provided. They've provided an RF engineer. If you'd like to hear it from mister Compton, that Verizon intends to use our sight, I can have him come back up.
Um can you ask a answer a question for me because I know this is gonna come up in the next case.
Yes, sir.
Did you submit? the appropriate license for the tower with your application. And I'm sorry because I'm not an expert in FCC licenses and for cell towers, so I have no clue what's required, but I know that the submittal requirement says that you have to submit the license. So was that part of your package?
This is Matt Tanah John. If I may.
This is not working for me. Now I'm talking about the remote. Well.
you could just answer it
without a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of
We did provide proof of licensure. Um
So how so is it is it that the carrier that Verizon is licensed or is it that the tower is licensed? Is it that each little antenna is licensed? Explain to me how this works.
So the carrier is licensed. Um that and it's it fascinating because this argument has been discussed with federal law because There have been attempts to strip tower companies of standing under federal law because they don't carry Licenses.
The courts have dealt with that. But the light is a very good thing.
Oh fair enough, fair enough.
So Speaking in terms of an effective prohibition case, and I want to be clear I am not trying to make any type of uh I'm not I'm not trying to say anything about boo about the Big Bay federal law. Um There have been cases, effective prohibition cases. As a matter of fact I had a um litigant try to bring this argument against me to say that a tower company can't bring an effective prohibition case because you can't effectively prohibit a tower company because
they broadcast no signal because they're no lic they're not licensed. and within the strain of effective prohibition, the courts have said, well actually they're providing a service for the carrier. They're doing this for the carrier and they are losing because the carrier is losing that they get to step in their shoes because they are losing the ability to provide space for the carrier and they are therefore have standing under effective prohibition. And the court said and that's regardless
of the fact that they do not hold an FCC license. That's the province of the wireless provider. Okay. Okay.
Can I just add to that though, but our code requires that you have a wireless applicant. Submit with the you can't submit an application for a spec tower under our code. That's why I'm asking the question, thank you. Because it's the our position is it's the wireless provider that's protected under the federal law. I know that's
the No the courts agree with you because the only way that a wireless the only way that a tower company has standing, as I understand federal law for effective prohibition is because it derives from the carrier providing a wireless service. If you just want to build a tower to sit outside and look at and smile and say, This is my pretty gray tower. You don't have effective prohibition ca you don't have the ability to raise an effective prohibition argument. You can't establish a gap. You can't establish Um the the need.
Understood.
So um would you like Mr. Compton to come up and state on the record that Verizon is an FCC licensed wireless carrier for cellular purposes?
No, I'm one of their customers, so I'm
assuming
Um, with that, Commissioner Oak I would ask that you adjudge this tower in the light of its own day. Because we stand in the light of our own day. It doesn't matter to us what happens with Ms. Martahue's tower. Um to the extent that this has dulled your opinion of attorney, so I apologize for the profession.
Anyways. I just wanna figure out how we're gonna deal with the landscaping issue. Whoa. Well wait, go ahead and finish. What you gotta say.
Might.
I'll let you practice the land use law. Well, I don't know if you were gonna raise a different issue.
My thinking is it's a moot point That if they wish to pursue, if there's if there's some debate, there's some doubt from the opposition. That's right. We have or don't have some ability to pass a quote waiver to the landscaping. They can seek the alternative standard relief during the PSP and at the end of the day the applicants already said they'd be willing to give the landscaping anyway, so I'm not sure to be any importance.
Yeah, so I was going to discuss this with the applicant, see what they wanted to do um in light of the objection. So we could impose a condition that you comply with the landscaping requirements of the code. then that would effectively prohibit you from getting an old standard at the time of PSP. I d I don't know what you're I'm asking you what what what is your what are you requesting we do for that issue?
And what were the objections that you received?
We are agreeable to a condition requiring a planted landscape buffer. In accordance with the code. In accordance with the code. Okay.
Shall I read what the conditions should say? Sure. Okay. So that would change condition three to be um it sh will now read the owner's applicant shall comply with the buffering requirements of the L D C section one zero zero two point eight point C la Period, sorry. Landscape shall be landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with L D C nine oh five point two point E. Chain link or welded wire fences are prohibited.
This is Matt and I, John, and we agree to the proposed wording of the condition.
Denise? Is the school board the only one who has towers that don't have landscaping?
Absolutely. The school board and then there's also a tower that's for the US Air Force, they actually claimed uh Homeland Security.
Oh,
okay. Yeah.
Well you know that five foot high bush will screen that hundred and eighty five foot tower. No one will ever see it there.
Brad, did you need to add something to this? Brad, did you need to add you got up. Did you need do you need to add something?
Uh just wanted to offer from the actual site review standpoint that at times in these cases we have existing mature lands uh existing mature trees and things that are there. Uh to the extent that anything like this is is being mandated to force us to remove that and plant new stuff around there to comply with the landscape code, we don't want to do that. We would prefer to keep our head. And and generally we can. I just want to make sure that we're not trying to supersede that principle that's in there. So you're able
to determine that the existing mature vegetation can comply with that.
Exactly. And that's actually what Denise said at the very beginning of this.
Just a quick legal check. I think the land development the sorry the landscaping code nine oh five includes language that you can Mm-hmm. count preserved trees toward the planted tree buffer tree requirements.
But but that's I think that's consistent with what Denise read though. Yes.
Yeah, I just
heard the word all standard and I wanted to make sure that we're not going to force an alt standard to be done if it's something we're going to do.
No, they actually it's the opposite. We're saying they're going to comply with the code. Which the applicants agreed to.
Okay. Have any other any further questions? Any further discussion? If not, I'd like to hear a motion please.
Move to approve item P eight with the amended condition as read by Ms. Hernandez.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Thank you.
Thank you for your time today.
Ms. Johnson, do you mind if you're in your client's stay for the next one? 'Cause it's possible we may have questions for you or your client on the next one? Or you plan to stay anyway?
This is Mataniah John. Um and I was planning to stay to make an appearance, not to object to their tower, but merely to preserve standing so I do not risk um engaging in malpractice later on because they have availed themselves, because these guys have availed themselves of my record. So yes, I will be here. Okay, thank you. Very much.