PDE25CU03 conditional use 195-foot wireless facility
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Oct 3, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Oct 3, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 2m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 76% of 296 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Alright, so we're gonna move on to the regular item on your agenda, which is item P4. And as my colleagues bring that item up, I have a couple of things that are house cleaning items on this I on this item. This is PDE25 C U03, it's conditional use, Cynthia M. Barthel, Anthem Net Inc. Horizon Wireless. This is for a 195-foot above ground level Monopine Wireless Communication Facility in an ER state residential district. There were several emails of
objection that came in after the agenda packet closed. I did uh forward nine of those to the Planning Commission members with, you know, of course, the do not reply all. And I we these were also sent to the clerk's office. In addition, there was a correction to the parcel ID number. I inadvertently, it was Correctly noticed, but I had inadvertently stated it was sub one, so the correct parcel ID number I will read it into the record 29-24 dash 21 dash
0000-01000-0000 and that's a portion of that parcel. In addition, this morning I also received a letter of objection from a person who lives at [address removed]. Um so if I could please get that over to the Planning Commission members because that did not make the agenda packet.
Okay. Motion to receive and file.
Second.
You have a motion and second. All in favor signifies saying aye. Aye aye.
Okay, thank you very much on that. So this is PDE 25CU03. It's conditional use for a 195-foot above-ground level monopying wireless communication facility in an ER district. That's a state residential, and the future land use classification is Res 3. Residential three dwelling units per Gross Acre. This it will consist of a 185 foot wireless communication facility with a 10 foot lightning rod. As a monopine, which will be suitable for the locate co-location of three
additional carriers. And this is proposed to be located within a 2,500 square foot fence compound area. The overall parcel is 4.22 acres. The property is located in north-central Pasco County at the northwest corner of the intersection of St. Joe Road and Mount Zion.
So, this visual that I'm showing now shows the surrounding zoning districts. The actual parcel is zoned ER State Residential, which is the zoning that is to the north and to the east. To the south is the city of Dade City. To the southeast is a subdivision by the name of West Hill Estates, and to Leave West is a subdivision. They're AR zone properties, which are an acre and a half or greater, and it is the Willow Run
subdivision. This is the future land use all Res 3, but for of course the city of Dade City, and as you can see, Swannee Lake is to the south.
So access to the overall site is from St. Joe Road to the wireless communication communication compound area will be through a twenty-foot-wide access and utility easement that is located off of St. Joe Road. This is the context map just showing us around the area.
This is a portion of the site plan that basically shows the setbacks from the property lines. It is setback from the northern property line. to the compound that is 79 feet to the southern property line 160 feet to the eastern property line 449 feet and to the western property line 165 feet This is the site the tower the tower site plan and the elevation. This basically shows you the
fence compound area and the proposed landscaping and that dotted circle around there is a fall zone for the for the tower.
This is photo simulations or a visual impact analysis. This is required as their applic as part of their application. They have to show at least four views. So the views are basically with, with, without, and with. So this is looking east on Mount Zion Road without the tower. This is looking east on Mount Zion Road showing the tower. Looking northwest on Saint Joe, just east of Mount Zion, without. in the same
direction with
This is looking north on Happy Hill Road without.
And then with I apologize?
Just Hmm. And this is looking east on Sage Joe Road at Happy Hill Road without And the same location with This item comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions and I am here for any questions that you may have.
Okay. Any questions up here? Mm-hmm. Alright.
Okay. The applicant present.
Mm-hmm.
Is the is this a applicant present or virtually present? Present.
Um not yet. I don't think.
Good afternoon, Mary Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida. I'm legal counsel for Anthem Net, who is the applicant on this particular application. Ms. Hernandez has done a fantastic job of laying out the facts of this case for you and evaluating it against your code criteria. I don't have any additional facts to add for you at this time. I do have a team of people with me today. Jen Frost, who's the project manager with Anthem Net. David Smith, who is the RF engineer
for Verizon Wireless, who is the anchor tenant on the tower. And David Talby, who is the state certified general real estate appraiser, who give gave you that lovely hundred plus plus page report that's in your package about property values. And then finally Harold Timmins, who is with Tower Engineering Professionals. Um I suggest that it may make more sense for these folks to talk to you after you've heard from the neighbors and um And
then they can address any specific comments or concerns that come up. Before you open it up for public comment, I do think it um that I'd like to say a few things to help frame the discussion today. Tower siding is more of a science than it is an art and we don't relish taking applications through the that pack the house. We try very hard to avoid this, but sometimes we just can't. When a new tower is proposed, we start with the wireless carriers search
area that is based on their network design. And that's science. That's just science. It's based on the RF propagation, where the existing antenna locations are located, what heights they're at, how the signal travels over the existing topography and terrain. and demands on the network. And all of that boils down to a search area. The tower developer then gets that search area, and we have to find a location in that general area that's what I like to
call BLZ. And the B stands for buildable. We first have to find a site that we can build. We have to avoid wetlands. We have to avoid floodplains. We have to avoid water bodies. We have to be able to get to the site. We have to avoid airports and their airspace. So we have to find something that's buildable. The L is for leasable. We have to find a willing landowner. We can't force anyone to allow us to build a tower on their
property. And unlike other infrastructure builders like cities and counties and DOT and electric utilities and gas line providers who can use the power of eminent domain to locate their infrastructure. We have to find a willing landowner. I think I'd get fine. And Z is for zonable. When we overlay those local government regulations over the search area, we have to determine what we can actually get approved. And what will allow us, we have what properties where we can meet
all of the locational and performance criteria that are in the code. So when we overlay these three things, more often than not, we can find a site that doesn't ruffle too many feathers. But some cases that just doesn't happen. And in the case of hand, we were left with very few options. And unfortunately we have unhappy neighbors. Um The site before you, however, meets all of the code requirements. We meet every single requirement in
your code. We're not asking for any waivers, no variance, no relief from setbacks. We're not asking for any relief from any county requirement. So before you hear from the neighbors, do you have any questions for me or any members of our team?
Are you finishing the presentation?
Yes.
Okay. Anything for for the applicant?
At this moment.
And uh see where their concerns are.
Mr. Chair, the first person I have signed up to speak on this is Led Johnson.
Okay, Mr. Johnson.
Can you just state your name, Lynn, and your address,
please, for the record? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Karen. I'm Lynn Johnson, [address removed], uh Dade City, which is just down the street from the subject site, and I have been sworn. We own approximately 30 acres along Mount Zion Road, including our home site and then some family company property, Triple J Ranch, several hundred feet down and all the way to the top of the hill.
At this point in time, we have nothing but great views. You will see that this subject As they showed in some of the presentation, is sitting in the middle of a pasture. There's not one tree, there's not a building, there's nothing else between it and the road and the adjoining both both in front and in back to the to the east and to the west home sites. In addition to which
in in the Dade City uh development that's going on across the street. There are no residents yet. They're building houses. They're gonna have I don't know how many. But this this will be in their view, in their normal view. Uh all they have to do is step out of their backyard. There's nothing between them and this. Uh
do we excuse me, but do we have a map that we can put up that shows where the residential areas are?
Okay.
Maybe you could point out your area.
Um
We're getting a full telescope.
So this is the new subdivision coming in that's a city of Dade City annexed property here. Well like I said, they have homes under construction, a number of them, and they'll look from here to there. Nothing between them and this tower. Mount Zion Road, nothing between residents, residents, residents. Our property kind of goes on and then Willow Run here. Again, nothing between
a 195-foot tower with a Christmas tree on top. I mean, uh you know, I don't really know what purpose that serves, frankly. But The applicant said that they complied with all of the standards. So the county's location standards for a tier three So tower. Says they shall be located in an area where the adverse visual impact on the surrounding area is minimized.
Adverse visual impact shall be measured by the presence and degree of the following negative factors. A large amount of the facility is visible from normal views. You can see it from everywhere. You even saw it in their examples.
The facility is of a design, material, location, or size that readily catches and holds a viewer's eye when viewed from normal views. It's a twenty-story tower. It if it were a building, it'd be the tallest one in Pasco County by far. The facility is in the normal view of a person in a moving vehicle for more than a short period of time. You can see it coming from here down from Hill Road. We see it all the way just about up our road. You can see it coming
from west to east. And you can certainly see it, again, here. The wireless facility is readily identifiable as a wireless facility by the average viewer. Again, uh, you know, the first 180 feet is a tower with a Christmas tree. The facility when viewed from normal views appears out of place in the area. It couldn't be more out of
place. 20 seconds.
Right.
There's an absence of existing visual impact from other uses in the area surrounding the wireless communications facility. There's nothing else. It's a pasture. The scale, height, and bulk of the wireless communications facility is significantly greater than the other uses existing or allowed in the surrounding area. There's nothing in the surrounding area except if you go a few hundred yards away, there are a couple of trees, there are no buildings, there there is literally nothing between this facility and
everything around it. It does not meet the location. standards and we would ask that you uh send a recommendation of denial. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Come up here? No. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, next person I'm hoping I'm gonna state this name correctly is Pat Guanyo.
Pat? Is there a Pat here?
She does not want to talk. Okay.
All right. Following person is Alexandra Baker.
Good afternoon. My name is Alexander Baker, [address removed]. Originally requesting the Planning Commission to accept my letter on the record in regards to P4, the proposed CU2420 Vista Walk Tower. Just to verify, I believe it was mentioned that the email that was sent this morning is in regards to this letter, but did want to ensure that it is on the record.
It is on the record they um move to exceed following.
All right, I would and also would like to echo Mr. Lynn Johnson's remarks and express my concern and opposition of this proposal and also request a recommendation of denial. Thank you.
Where are you located?
I am in Willow Run, uh believe it's the fourth or fifth house to the right. I was within the five hundred feet requirement, I believe, by the county um in regards to receiving a letter to that location.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm gonna call this person again just in case she signed up for this particular item, Yirsa Blanchard. No? Okay. So Yirsa Blanch Blanchard will not be speaking. Okay, following person is Nancy Johnson.
Nancy Capanus Johnson, not to com confuse with Lynn Johnson, no relation. [address removed]. Thank you. And I apologize in advance. I'm nervous. I had too much coffee and not enough lunch.
Just no there's no need to be nervous.
Oh sure there is.
Thank you. This parcel of land in itself might be appropriate for a cell tower. AnthemNet has chosen this site because it would enhance their desired honeycomb effect. with other existing cell towers, namely the one behind with Lacouche Electric and another near Highway fifty two and Smith Road. and it would provide better coverage to populous areas within Dade City limits, to the east Vista Walk,
and to the south Summit View. However, this parcel of land where it is located and what is established around it makes it inappropriate. This tower would be less than two hundred feet from two backyards and pool areas within Willow Run, a gated, deed restricted, high value residential community. It will be less than 300 yards or feet from the Emoli's driveway, the center of their young family's activities,
and also another high-value home. The cell tower will only have minimal setback from Saint Joe Rebe. The proposed six-foot-tall PVC fence and shrubs will in no way provide adequate coverage to hide carriers equipment and blend a 190-foot-tall tower into the surrounding environment. It was stated at the neighborhood meeting that Anthem Net does not, as of yet, have the carrier's designs
and are looking at an initial maximum of four carriers, but may add more down the line if the structure can hold them. At the neighborhood meeting, the question was asked why the cell tower could not be placed within the populous communities they are trying to provide better coverage to. AnthemNet stated that these developers have already received their entitlements, the lots have been platted along with open space and drainage, and there
is no available space. They continued to state that some developers are open to siting towers at the edge of or within their neighborhoods, but these are already entitled prior to that point. Vista Walk and Summit View could continue. continue to appear before the Dade City Planning Board and Commissioners for changes to their original entitlements. This is a 40-year lease for the proposed tower. Dade City
Planning and Commissioners should provide this coverage for the areas they have annexed and developed. If the county were to approve this coverage, instead for city residents, they should approve only a more appropriate site that does not negatively impact their own constituents and landscape. Because of this parcel's unique location, the property value impact study reported by Lee Pallardy is largely irrelevant. I'm
almost done. Thank you.
Yeah, another minute.
The two comparison towers listed locally are set back from busy roads, both of which are in Pasco County, and provide coverage for populous areas within Pasco County, namely Maraudha and Epperson. The third comparison tower is in Spring Hill and is a cross tower located a church who receives the lease income from the tower. Real estate values listed regarding local projects do not exceed $289,000.
The study then goes on to report on high-value homes in Naples pertaining to a 75-foot-tall tower built at an elementary school, as well as towers in Sarasota and Orlando, all with dozens of homes and neighborhoods surrounding the towers. Currently this parcel is zoned estate residential, or I heard earlier, ER. Could this designation please be explained to us and what is the county, what does
the county envision for specific historic, rural, high-value residential areas as such? I brought pictures of the homes taken from my cell phone and areas we are discussing, as well as the current communication towers in the Dade City area, all of which show better compali compatibility to their immediate area. We hope if the planning commissioners are able to give
a strong non-recommendation vote to their county commissioners for this project, they will do so.
All right. Would you like to submit those for the record? record. Move to receive and file. Second.
Thank you very much.
Yeah. Um just one question before you sit down. I'm trying to make sure I understood what you said about can you come back up to the mic. Um were you saying that if it was a different design that you would be less critical of it, like if it was a cross or something?
No sir, not at all. I
just want to make sure I understood what you were saying. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, the last person I have signed up to speak, please call to make sure that he is indeed the last person, is Robert Welborn.
Robert, uh you're the last person is there anybody else here to speak after Robert? I don't see anyone. Yeah.
Good afternoon. Robert Wellbourne, [address removed]. Um I'm here on behalf of myself. I'm also president of the Willow Run Property Owners Association. Um to build on what some of the previous speakers have said. This site is in the Stark Wide Open. To decorate it as a tree is absurd because there are no trees around it to even approach the height of this structure. That's number
one. Number two, with the height of this structure, and it's my understanding that they can add an additional 20 feet without any further procedure. This structure, should there be a catastrophic failure, could impact St. Joe Road. It's not set back far enough from St. Joe Road. And again, it's my understanding that this site is being put in for the benefit of subdivisions that were annexed in by Dade City. And
I also want to make another point that within the last 24 months, those very same subdivisions, I've watched two. nearly two hundred foot hillsides taken away one dump truck at a time, which by the way has destroyed Happy Hill Road. But um This creates a stigma. Why can't this stigma be put on one of those other stigmatized sites that's already been excavated in a mess made of? Why does it need to be on this pristine piece of property? Completely
unconforming to the surrounding uses. Our neighborhood, our home values in our neighborhood range probably anywhere from seven hundred thousand to one point five million. This has a greater financial impact on our residents and our community. which is just simply a twelve block community, gated community. And i you know, it's just it has a m a more unfair impact to us financially because we have a greater investment. And
should our property values go down, it also that impact would trickle down to the county. But You know, the um The appraiser put in their report about other sites and other comparables that were used. I want to go on the record as saying if you look at the cell tower on Island Boulevard, That was put in a site along a major thoroughfare highway, main artery road. High traffic, it already has some kind of an economic impact on
the buildings that are on that road. There's also a large body of water behind it. There's also large two, three hundred year live oaks that hide the equipment in the bottom of it, and there's also a county waste or a freshwater treatment plant immediately adjacent to it. So again, It's on a property that comes already pre-stigmatized. To take this property and stigmatize it with this, I feel like is not the proper application. And our community
would recommend denial of the application.
All right. Well thank you for coming. Any questions? I
I just wanted to address the the height thing. Although it may be possible that they can add that height from an engineering standpoint, they likely won't because anything above two hundred feet, there you have to conform to additional FCC or I'm sorry, FAA requirements uh for airplanes. So I know for a fact it has to be lighted at 200 feet and above. So most likely um it's not gonna get extended. That's why most of these towers are under two hundred feet.
I would also have one other question if I may present it. Yes. In your map in your slideshow, it shows the uh affected area or surrounding area, I think is the way it's labeled. And I noticed that you asked for proper certification and service on this. I was never I never received anything, and I'm very close to this site.
I think it's five hundred feet, is that right? So are you are you within five hundred feet?
Had it not been for one of my residents bringing it to my attention, I wouldn't even know this project was going on.
Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay. Very good. If there's no one else to speak, uh would the applicant like to respond to some of the concerns?
But
Thank you. Um
Commissioner Ponlitz, you're absolutely correct. We would have to add lighting to the tower, but my client will agree to a condition of approval that the tower height not be extended above what has been submitted. So that's a hundred and eighty five foot tower with a ten-foot lightning rod. So we would agree to that that condition. Um There was a comment made about it not being c uh far enough back from Saint Joe Road to not be a safety factor in the event of uh Bad weather. The tower is set back from St. Joe Road 185
feet, which is the height of the tower. And we're also having it engineered with a 60-foot fall zone. So in the unlikely event of tower collapse, it would fall within that 60-foot radius. So it's not presenting a safety issue to either anybody traveling on St. Joe Road or to the Willow Run subdivision to the west. Okay. Denise, can you pull up the um The adjoining property owners PDF. I just want to point out the first speaker, Mr. Johnson, he does own quite a bit of property out there.
Uh that's not um nope. Um That large red area that says same owner is Mr. Johnson's uh amalgamation of properties, but his home, if you go to the third page of that slide, his home is actually nineteen hundred feet away from the tower. He he's quite a bit. He's quite a distance away. Those distances are noted there. Um I'm gonna have David Tolby address the Um Prop the property values questions.
I want to go back to the siding the walk siding. Yes, let's go through this just a little bit. Um Let's get you all oriented. Do I have a pointer?
Okay. So um here's our zoning. This all of that yellow is um Pasco County. That's our subject property. Um mister Johnson was incorrect. This property here that's under construction right now is still in Pasco County. This area that's not got a yellow color is Dade City. So here's our search area. We're just a tiny bit outside there. Dade City doesn't allow towers on residential zoning, which all of
that is, so all of that's off the table. This yellow here is the wetlands that are in the area, so a good portion of our search area has wetlands on it. In addition to flood zones. And then so that leaves us with really everything north of um the flood zone and the wetland areas. Pasco County allows towers in every single zoning category. They're not deemed to be incompatible with residential development. They're allowed as a conditional use in every
category, provided you meet the locational criteria. So We didn't have too many choices. The lar this large vacant land here Um landowner said no. This is the uh this is all developing single-family homes. The The Barthel property was really all we had left. And it you're i hi they're correct, there isn't any screening on it, but we again we were left with no
choices. That's what we had to work with. And the RF engineer will come up and talk to you about how that search ring was derived, how the who's getting coverage, who's not getting coverage. RF signals don't know jurisdictional boundaries, they don't determine that we're going to provide coverage to people who live in Dade City and not Pasco County, or Pasco County, or not Dade City. They just look at customers and they look at a community that needs service. And I would think after after Hurricane Helene we would all be a little bit more
um receptive to the idea that we need strong and hardy infrastructure in our communities. So um Who wants to go first? R F.
Before you before you change off that slide, I got one question for you. Th what's the difference between the ring on the slide that you have up there now and the the search ring that's in the in your report?
There it's the same.
Well the one that's in the report, uh uh Omnicom, is that not you guys? That
is
that's our consultant? Yes, that's
correct. He puts together a map.
Because their sear uh the search ring in there, and I don't know what the difference is, is is quite a bit bigger than that search ring.
Yeah. The other thing I'd like to ask is who decided to put the branches on there?
Your code. Верно, асипатетики ас-вижуалі. And Your code Expressly states That A tree design is a mitigating design. And is deemed to have less adverse visual impact. So we followed your code. and put in the design that your code says has less visual impact.
Yeah, that's s I think it's a subjective opinion. It's a lot of folks will think that's a good idea.
A two
hundred
foot tall tall
pine
track.
And that's what your code says.
Normally what we've seen in the past where we've seen these monopines is when the residents specifically requested it, but most of them are presented to us as monopolis.
You know, the t tower developer would prefer a monopole.
But We we respected the black and white language of your code.
Because the other issue is is the potential microplastics and all the other stuff that comes with that.
Right. And I have um
We talked about that in the previous meeting as well.
We did, and I've got the letter from Larson, the tower manufacturer. The branches are made from uh PVC material similar to underground PVC pipes and they're stable. And the manufacturer insists that we're not going to do it. It's Not danger. Dangerous to the environment.
I beg to differ.
Excuse me,
but what was that?
That's the letter from um Belmont Larson Tower Engineering, the Tower Um Manufacturing.
You
had asked us to receive and file it.
I'm sorry. Commissioner Bray, would you please receive and
receive and file? Second.
Thank you, Mr. Land.
Ma'am, is this uh we have to vote is this site in the northeast
rural
area?
Let him finish the vote.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed. Like signed. Okay.
Go ahead now. I don't know whether she can answer it or staff can answer. Is this site in the northeast rural area?
It is not as it's east of a northeast rural area. Okay.
Again, while we're talking about visual impacts and why you reference the code, um as I look it through the code, this is this is a tier three tower, correct? Correct. And if I go to one zero zero two subsection one zero zero two point seven B
one A The end of that section says adverse visual impact shall be measured by the presence and degree of the following negative factors. There's 11 factors there and If I was rating that, I would rate be pretty high on nine
of the eleven. I hear you, but I want you to go all the way down to the bottom. where it says normal views, and you have a definition in your code that's pretty interesting. Normal views as used in this subsection means views from where a person would normally be present and be able to see the facility, as well as the area of view in the normal view of the average person. And here's the key. Then you have a definition of area of view. It's measured as the area up to 15 degrees above the horizon and
30 degrees left and 30 degrees right of the forward view. So that's meant to reflect what more of a line of sight analysis and more reflecting what you see when you're in your car looking this way, when you're out in your yard. It's not looking up.
Can you bring that photo back? 'Cause I think I'd beg to differ with the Sub
Yeah, subsection three that I just referenced, it says the wireless communication facility is in the normal view of a person in a moving vehicle for more than a short period of time. I I didn't have those simulations when I was driving over today. But I can promise you if that tower was there I wouldn't have to see it for more than a short period of time. In anybody's definition.
Yeah, my opinion.
Is there something you can do? to better make that fit with the scenery. I mean I I I agree with Mr. Johnson. It looks like a Christmas tree stuck up on top of a pole.
Well, I
We've seen bell towers. I will suggest you I'm not sure my business partner suggested you could make it look like a water tower. You're out in the country, you could make it look like a grain silo? And that truly looks like the Charlie Brown Christmas tree up on a pole.
We can Yeah. The monopole is probably the best application. The monopoles tend to just fade into the background. The flagpole is problematic because it limits the number of antennas the carriers can get inside the pole and the heat. They just will not use them.
So we've had testimony before this board that those flagpoles can be properly in fact I think it was one of your own clients. that testified that they could ventilate the flagpole canister.
David Smith?
Yeah, I think size wise they can't get the modern antennas inside a flight pole.
Choose yourself. David Smith, um Rising Wireless RF. Your
address please. David. I'm sorry. Your address,
please. Uh 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida. So with flag poles, um currently I'm not aware of anything that we have uh proposed to any of our our candidates that have uh that have ventilation. Uh normally when we have a flagpole all the ones that we get they're enclosed and we can't put our amplifiers up top so we have to put the equipment at the ground which causes a lot of loss. The coverage and everything shrinks so it and and and and as a result we have to put more towers uh
further down the line because they don't have the greatest impact versus the tower top putting the the radios up top.
Okay, so you're saying it's impossible is what you're saying.
Not saying it's impossible, but in this in for what we're trying to achieve, if we did something like that, we'd probably have to put another tower um somewhere in between the other ones because it wouldn't wouldn't reach as far as that we're trying to gain. Um so like I said, it just yeah, it just it just shrinks uh the pattern because of the loss. All the amplifiers at the bottom. So uh when we we we especially with the newer gen equipment. Um everything's integrated, uh so we want to get the the the greatest, latest technology with the best speed.
And what stops you from doing like a bell tower? Well
That would be that would be up to Anthem Net and the property owner.
Okay. So so why Mr. Smith is up there you brought up the the concept of optimal spacing? What what is that? I mean I obviously were dealing with 5G towers, understand they need to be closer together and the like, but what is an optimal spacing for you know an off take or another another tower?
Well i it all depends, right? We don't have a a flat um distance uh of like every so miles we're gonna put it. It all depends on the geographic, right? The amount of traffic, the neighboring sites how how tall they are just because say both of them are at 200 feet and we put a site right in the middle. Um again the antennas are different, they have different tilts, we change the powers, we we what we do is optimize, right? So if the traffic's here we can pull the signal back, have it pull off to the other site and and kind of help out. Sorry about that.
Can we Denise, can we bring the Pasco mapper back up?
Do you do you wan do you wanna see his RF information and his site?
Well I'm just
he wants to look at the map right now.
Yeah. So we just approved another tower site. That By my calculations about a
To
the west. One point three miles away.
Correct.
From this tower? To the west? Yeah, the Christ site. Is is that the y Yeah, the one that we uh
that they they move back up. That's where I'm going with this is that I mean I understand we're dealing with five G technology and we've got you know we're for you know we need to get a tower tight tighter spacing of towers and and the like for for that technology to work. I I get it, but I'm struggling with the need for a tower a mile away from another tower. I
understand if if you look at the maps you're gonna see where our propagations are.
Yeah, I I did, but you know, I'm recalling the propagation from that new tower also and
Verizon's gonna use both of those.
Right, exactly. That's part of my question.
I
guess
so. Sounds wrong we just approved show on it show up on his map.
I that's I'm not sure if it does or not. Yeah we we included
the packet. It shows both sites.
So what you're seeing now is the the current coverage plus the proposed coverage of the the uh site that you're reviewing now. So like right here, this is the current site that we're discussing, and of course everything else around it is our existing coverage for our AWS band. So you can see here the purpose of this site is really to cover up to the north, to the east, and over here to the south and southeast with the new growth and development. The other site that you're referencing
is over here, and I believe it's on the next side or the slide before, where it shows how it fits in there, and this one covers here, here, and covers these neighborhoods down here. As far as spacing and you're saying 5G, I mean everything's kind of moving up that way. Again, that's just the technology, the frequencies are staying the same. But as we transition with these new services that we're doing, like home internet, the quality of signal, so while we put more out there is for capacity and quality
of coverage. So these new services that we have, they have to have a better circuit signal level. Um so we just have to beef up the network on that aspect. Plus with all the new growth and development, it puts strains on the existing network and that's why we're building these new towers.
Alright. Um anything else you'd like to say?
I'm gonna have Mr. Talby come up and just address some of the comments that were made about property values. Do you need your report? Okay.
David Tolby, Lee Powered Incorporated, six oh nine East Jackson Street, Tampa. I have been sworn. In front of you you do have my report. It speaks for itself. It's been developed over years and years. I've been studying this issue for over 25 years, starting up in Leon County, Jefferson County, all the way down to Collier County in Naples, which uh one of the one of your uh speakers spoke about. I've studied urban towers. Relative to commercial
development and residential building. I've studied rural towers as well. This is probably you could consider a rural location, but I want to draw your attention to three things. One is the 380-foot tower that Pinnacle owns, right next to the new T uh PTC Boyette Centertown development. That was a rural tower, 380 feet tall, guy wire supported. You can see it from miles and miles and miles. So now you have a developer. Who's taken the risk of purchasing the land? rezoning
it, gaining entitlements and now he's developing, as you know, the infrastructure's going in now, all in the shadow of a tower. Mirada is now encroaching From the west, and they're also in the shadow of this tower, the far west houses in Maratha, you know, the Lagoon Development, you're very familiar with that. On the far east side of the A Marata. At Curley Road and Lena Road, you've got a 180-foot tower, Monopole Tower, Verizon Tower, and I have confirmed that that tower has had no impact on any of the valuations in Maratha or any other
surrounding developments. Just like I find everywhere. There's no data. And I'm talking about sale and resale data that indicate these towers are impacting values. Yeah let me The third thing I want to draw your attention to, I spoke to your two of your appraisers, Chris Poe and Dan Velia, talked to them several times, not once. Has your appraiser or any appraiser along the whole west coast of Florida in in into central Florida? Has a property appraiser made a reduction in an assessment
of a property commercial Rural, residential, residential, urban, whatever you want to call it, because of proximity to a tower. So you have to ask yourself, how can that be? When you hear these residents speaking about these impacts. the appraisers deal with the same issue I do. Market data and there's simply no market data that indicates and supports that these towers impact values. You know, a market is a pool of buyers, not just one individual. So
the problem is is that you're talking about pro towers that were already in place. So how can you tell the whether they impacted the value or not? They were there when the home bear home buyer bought the home. They weren't w th there was no impact after they bought the home.
Well I don't I don't
quite follow your I
gave you the example.
I can see the tower. I buy the home. Versus The house is there, I buy the house and then suddenly somebody wants to build the tower. Next to me. I can tell whether there's an impact. after if the home's there before the tower. If the tower's already there, And I decided to buy the home. There's no impact because I'm I know it's there.
I've re I've I I've actually researched this issue. So I've researched But so have I. I've researched existing you know, existing dwellings when a new tower came up and then you research sale and resale following the installation of the new tower. I've I've actually researched that. I've talked to the realtors, I've talked to the property owners, I've knocked on doors. So is there a I've I've just I I I've actually gone beyond trying to find some data that would indicate there's an impact. That's always been my goal. Is there any data regarding time on market? Same thing. We
deal with we deal with market conditions and market time and you know All the time and uh I've researched to see if there's any extended marketing period with a house near a tower and there just simply isn't one. Occasionally you'll find a buyer, very occasionally, who's adverse to the tower. This existing tower. But again that'd be me. But again, the the market is a pool of buyers and there's These houses always sell and they sell within the same marketing time As you know The
the other s the other sales kind of within the same subdivision, but let's say they're half a mile away or a quarter mile away with you know you can't see it at all. So
Could have a letter that was in our that was submitted to us from Alexandra Baker.
She says the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines categorize cell towers as quote hazards and nuisances, and HUD requires its certified appraisers to take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of single-family residential properties. Is that a true statement?
I don't really deal in resident and and HUD valuations, but even if it is Yeah. Absolutely you can report it. Why wouldn't you? If there's a if there's a cell tower nearby and you're appraising a house, sure you can report it. Why wouldn't you? But I've also you'll find this funny, I've also talked to realtors where a tower was right on top of a house. And they said, What talent? I think you you made a comment that these towers tend to blend in. I've knocked on doors with a tower that you can basically reach out and touch.
of a resident said, you know, why did you buy this house? You know, this tower's right behind him. This one lady in Tampa says, What tower? I go, Well let's walk out your front door and look at it.
If you live next to this tower, you think somebody would say that? What? No, no.
No, my my my point is that they they blend in, but i y I I hear all kinds of stories, but no, you'll see this tower. Absolutely.
From a long way away.
I mean there's no question you'll be able to see the bottom line is How many How many
Loans, how many mortgages on properties are HUD mortgages? You don't look at Hud? You know how many homes are purchased under that program?
Well, I think what you said is that a pr an appraiser would have to report that the tower was visible. Is that what you're saying?
And
I don't have a problem with that. Take the presence of nearby cell phone tower
into consideration when determining the value of single family residential properties. Why wouldn't you? You can do that. But
you're just reporting it, but there's no data to indicate it's gonna have any impacts.
You're saying they're taking it into consideration, but doesn't mean that there's an impact.
That's exactly
right.
Well, I d I tend to take the common sense approach. I've been in real estate business for over fifty years here. I'm pretty familiar with values. So in my opinion If I had that monstrosity next to my house, it would impact the value of my property. So if you think it doesn't, then you're just making up a store. So
you wouldn't have a problem buying the gentleman's property that the tower is going to be erected behind. There'd be no losses.
And pay that what today mark today's market price.
Yeah, I'm I'm telling Chairman, I appreciate what you're saying. I'm telling you that there's no data. You cannot find any data. that's going to tell you or show you that these towers impact surrounding residential values. I've studied it. I've studied it for twenty-five years. You're not gonna find anybody with more information about this issue than me. With all due
respect, I don't care about the value at this point. I care about their quality of life. And if I bought that I wouldn't want to look at that giant Christmas tree.
Well I'm just here to talk about valuation, so
Well we're here to protect our pop our people. That's our m number one job. Yes, sir. So if we think it's not gonna hurt the people who live here, then we're gonna be all for it. But if it is, then I'm not telling you that right now.
So
Anything else?
No sir.
Okay. I'll I'll just ask you this. Would it be your preference for a long continuance to go back and figure out how to find either another site? Or a tower which could be more compatible with the area, or would your preference be a recommendation of denial?
We think we have exhausted the search for a another property in the ring. And um I hear all of you. I hear what she's said. I understand it. I appreciate it. Y you all know I've been in front of you many times and I don't Um I don't often bring you a sight like this. But this one is what it is because of what's on the ground out there. It's what we we had limited choices. So I think
we would um prefer to keep it moving.
Okay, well we'll uh yeah. And you're not willing to change the configuration of the tower?
We can um I can I I've heard you I
asked the question.
Right.
So you mentioned the monopole might be uh me might be amenable to that. Or a bell tower. Or something else. Silent.
I am sorry, Mr. Williams.
As Mr. Moody says.
We uh we can discuss that internally and if we decide to um modify our application, I think we could still do that after today. Denise, could we not?
You can you can modify the application, the the the actual um the way that the tower looks, so whether it be a closed mop mount hole or or something else, you can. But the Planning Commission has in front of it today the application that they're reviewing.
I think that's why I asked you the question.
Let me just confirm.
And let me state that another way. The the risk you take if you try to change your application after it's gone to Planning Commission is the board may say we got a recommendation from Planning Commission that was based on a different application, they may remand it back and say, We want to know what Planning Commission's recommendation is on this new Tower. That's the risk you take by moving forward on a something that may change after the fact.
We can change it to a unipoll but it's still I still have to get landowner approval on that.
I'd move to recommend denial of the proposed application based on Land Development Code section one zero zero two point seven B Location Standards and that there is a significant degree of adverse visual impact as indicated in the code.
I'll suck at that. I just want to add that I understand and I I hear you a hundred percent in the state of you know, especially in the emergency that we recently had and the difficulties and the need for towers and you know all the things we hear on these every time. I mean more people are working at home, there's more use for more requirements for usage for bandwidth for all that kind of stuff, but I in my opinion and the reason I seconded the denial was it it it this just is not the right spot.
I mean there's too many visual impacts. I don't care what kind of pole you have there, to me it's still a significant visual impact for a a long period of time as you're driving down the road or as you're sitting in your house. It does this just doesn't blend in.
Yeah, I understand you may have exhausted some of the properties in the area, but that may have been exhausted uh based on the price that you were offering. So just something to keep in mind that uh more options may open up uh depending on how much you guys are able to offer the landowner. You know, there's a pro property to the north there's pretty heavily wooded, it's about eighty acres, and I see it's in a trussed uh so there's there's some spots around there I don't know, you know, if you've converse with every single landowner in that area, but
You know,
this is The second time I can well, actually this is the third time I can remember the second time for your client that I can recall that they've appeared before this board. both of which were controversial. cell phone tower sites.
And I'm shocked. that after the first hearing where you just wouldn't give, y you would not attempt to compromise
the look for the look of the tower. I mean The proposal's monopole or nothing. And then you're gonna do it again. I'm just not quite sure that that's a good strategy going forward when you come before this board.
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, Mr. Moody. I I've only been in front of this board with this client twice and that other site was a tree. And um so maybe
recommended denial that day too.
And And I had I had a landowner adamant about a tree. It was in the lease. So at the podium I cannot make that change. So I'm and I'm sorry that you you're choosing to penalize AnthemNet going forward.
I'm not. That has nothing. I'm just making a statement that I'm shocked that that's
Yeah, I want you to understand too that we're not penalizing anyone, we're just protecting people that live here. I
I
same thing I do for you if you live there.
Mr. Moody gave you the option to do a continuance to try to readdress that and you wouldn't take that, so
Can I just ask one more question? Yeah. Um I noticed that there's a number of utility electric utility poles, wooden poles in this area. W did anybody explore the option of doing small cell coverage? And if so, why was that not an option?
David Smith Verizon. Um small sales normally are not that high. They're about thirty, fifty, sixty and some depends on the municipality, right? Um but in general in order to cover that type of area we're trying to cover, you would probably have to put twenty plus small cells in its place all the way up and down the road. Um that's just it's just
Right, but uh but they would uh presumably all be on those electric utility pill poles and have less of a visual impact, wouldn't they?
Uh well as far as the utility poles it it's some of 'em. We put we partner with like Duke or the electric companies and stuff. A lot of ours are self-performed, so we'll put a steel pole in the right away. Um but still it'll be in the right way.
But what would be the height of those small cells?
Well whatever's approved for municipality like in Tampa we average from somewhere thirty five, forty five feet. sixty feet really depends on uh no.
But they wouldn't be much higher than what those existing utility poles that are there.
I if if that's what's approved for the for Pasco County. Again, I'm not familiar with the real estate.
Yeah, so basically um those would be approved by those would be allowed by right because there was that preemption that passed several years ago so they're under Chapter twenty Of our Pasco County Code of Ordinances.
So there is there's a feasible way they could get similar service through small sales. I'm not saying it's
It's
not so
much sense.
Well I he said it is it, but you would take it would take twenty or thirty of them.
Well it takes a lot more than and it's kinda like the way you look at it, even though it's you say small cells, it's basically a mini site. So it takes the same type of resources. I I know it's a a little bit cheaper than in say uh a full size site here. We still got the fiber concerns, right? Uh we might might might not be able to get fiber that's out all these poles are where we need them, right? So if we place them everywhere and of course they're gonna have to be on the right-of-way. Um so what we're trying to yeah what we're trying to cover we're not going up and down the street so if we need to make sure we're covering these neighborhoods do we have right-of-access in those
areas? Um again just high level not really sure where we are on the real estate side but from an R perspective I know that's some of the challenges they have.
Okay.
All right. Any other questions? Any further discussions? Yeah,
Chris. I'll I'll just chip in. I appreciate and I've done work with them before. You've done worked on our school board cell towers and I appreciate your work, but as somebody who lives out here, I I agree with all my colleagues. I just think it I don't vote on this one, but it just stands out just awful. So I even if I did vote, I would vote no.
Okay. Any further discussion? If not, uh we have a motion, we have a second. No further discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay. Motion carries and deny the application.
It does go for it, right?