PC5 PDD21CU01 Verizon wireless tower Bexley Elementary School
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.
What was said
Machine transcription of 30m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 69% of 159 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, if you just give me a second so I can share my screen so we can go over item PC five.
Thank you.
And there we go.
Item PC5 is PDD21 CU01 for the District School Board of Pasco County, Vertex Development. Verizon Wireless. It's for a 140-foot above-ground level close-mount wireless communication facility in a master plan unit development district.
at the Bexley Elementary School campus. The parcel is located in southwest Pasco County on the north side of Bud Bexley Parkway, also known as Tower Road, approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Ballantrae Boulevard and Bud Bexley Parkway, Tower Road. The site contains the Bexley Elementary School. What's being proposed is a 140-foot above-ground level wireless communication facility that's close mounted, which means that the antenna is mounted close to the pole within a 2500
square foot fence compound. According to the Land Development Code, wireless communication facilities are either a permitted use or a conditional use in all future land use classifications in all zoning districts. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 3rd of 2020. On September 25th, 2020, an alternative standard relieving the applicant from providing landscaping to the wireless communication facility was approved based on safe school design guidelines, and that's included in your packet. The surrounding zoning is MPUD.
It includes to the north, it's the Bexley Elementary School, Ballantry Boulevard, and Bexley South Parcel 4, phase one, and it's a drainage tract for that subdivision. To the east is Bexley South Parcel 4, Phase 3B. Track B 35, which is open space and drainage.
To the south is Bud Bexley Parkway or Tower Road, Ballantry Village 5 subdivision, which consists of single-family dwellings. And to the west is the actual Bexley Elementary School campus. And this is to the west of the of the actual where the compound will be. And also the Bexley South Parcel 4 phase one track B12, which is a drainage area and park site. The surrounding future land use is PD Plan Development. And then to the south you
have Res 3, which is three dwelling units per acre, and it's the Ballantry subdivision. The access to the property is through Bud Bexley Parkway through a 20-foot wide access easement. This is the uh the kind of like showing the um elevation of the what the tower will look like. And you also have a photo simulation on the right hand side. And the recommendation
is approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
Okay, and the objectors present.
Uh there uh Mr. Lech uh should be on WebEx and uh the applicants uh are also here. Mr. Ruiz uh with Vertex Development and uh Ms. Solik. Um are on as well.
Okay. Well then uh I think it makes sense to have the person that's gonna object to let's hear what he has to say and then they can respond.
Okay.
Good afternoon. This Good afternoon. This is Kevin Letch. Um address [address removed]. Um for this item P C five. Um my house, my property is located approximately.
M Mr. Lutz, have you been sworn?
Uh no, I don't think we we We did that.
Okay, let's let's get let's get the clerk to swear you in. Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr.
Lynch, can you please raise your le right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you, God?
I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, continue.
Um Our my property is uh located approximately 370 feet directly south of the proposed Bell Tower site. And uh I'm calling today um to object for a few reasons. Um visually and financial impact of a uh a cell tower at this location to not only my property but other residential properties in the area. Um first point I'd like to make is I don't believe
that a cell tower is is required in this location. I've lived there for 14 years. I've never had cell service issues. Um the applicant will most likely tell you that location of this cell tower is based on technology and this is where the technologies don't have to be. But um I'm here to tell you that I again I do not have cell phone service issues at my house. Therefore I think this is really for the extended development of the Bexley
ranch. Um residential development and therefore should be located further north to service those folks that are really this is for There are other areas available, especially east. There's thousands of acres of vacant land that could be uh Perfect for a use bug service. Not directly behind residential properties. Um second point I like to make is The the homes along
this stretch of Ballantrade um subdivision and Duke Frust had been through a lot the last five years with the construction of Power Road, the school, the extension of the school, the extension of Tower Road, and the current ongoing trucking activities along Tower Road for a permitted burrow pit. that the Beckley developer is um trucking dirt back and forth power road on a daily basis that is extremely
disruptive to our daily lives along Duke First Street as people try to work and learn from home these days. So largely we've been able to mitigate a lot of these impacts. uh, especially on my property with vegetation, but there's no way to mitigate a hundred and forty foot cell power within three hundred and seventy feet of my property. Last point I w like to make the most important is the financial impact of my property. You
can go online and find all kinds of information but the The most poignant one that I was able to find was a survey of a thousand people done by the National Institute of Science, Law and Public Policy that indicates ninety-four percent of these respondents Well not buy property in the vicinity of a cell town. So that is a direct impact to all
Sir that indicates that your time is up. Thank you so much for your comments.
Okay, so if we can hear from the applicant now.
If you would bring um Alan Ruiz or Jennifer Frost or Mary Solick on.
They are on. Mary Solik and Alan Ruiz are on. I see Mary has unmuted, but I don't know why we can't hear her. I'll unmute Alan Ruiz if he wants to speak.
Thank you.
Mr Mr. Ruiz or Ms. Solik, would you Are you there?
Um, hello, this is Alan Ruiz with Vertex Development.
Mr. Ruiz, would you please provide your address for the record and where whether you've been sworn?
[address removed], and I have been sworn.
Thank you. Please please proceed.
So uh I guess we're having some technical difficulties right now. It's our intention to have Ms. Solig present. The case on our behalf.
Is she not available?
I'm not understanding what's going on with
Mary. She's on but I don't know why her her uh audio is not working.
There we are.
May I have a quick moment to reach out to her to see if I can get the problem
resolved.
sir. Uh sure, just try to make it quick.
Technology's wonderful, isn't it?
All right. Hello. Mary, can you hear us?
Yeah,
I'm unmuted. I tested my mic before I went on and I
Hmm. But
I beg you're indulging. Yeah, what
Yeah, that that's probably not gonna work for us. That's that's not coming in right. There's a lot of feedback.
Yeah.
Okay. Uh
Mr. Chair, if we cannot get an effective presentation from the applicant, my recommendation would be that you continue this item.
Okay, care uh continue it, okay. I think that's I think that's just thinking about that myself. Uh brilliant minds, you know, David.
Okay. Uh then do I hear a motion to continue?
Actually So real I'm sorry to interrupt. This is Alan Ruiz again. I'll just go ahead and if it's all right with you guys, just move forward. Um This site was originally brought about because Verizon Wireless needed to enhance their coverage in the Bexley area, Bexley Elementary area. Um When we're talking about coverage enhancements, we're talking about the ability to have a signal reach
into people's homes and have reliable in-home coverage. in building coverage versus just your phone working when you're outside. Also, uh, the need for this site is due to uh uh uh increased demand for capacity. Um as uh technology advances and 5G advances and applications advance. Uh there's a greater need for more bandwidth and uh more densified network in the area. Um
Uh we also have had recently had T-Mobile reach out to us with an interest in uh co-locating their equipment on the tower for the same purposes of enhancing their network for Greater speeds and greater densification. Of their network as well? And also for it building coverages. Um we are in agreement with staff's report, staff report and what all the conditions placed on us uh in the report.
And we respectfully request to recommend approval of the site to the Board of County Commissioners. Yeah.
Okay. Um I don't know if anybody else has any questions. My only question at this stage is What kind of flexibility do you have to move? uh on that particular site. I I know there's a lot of room on that site, on the school site. And I see there's more room Going in the direction of where our the homes are not located. Uh can you move further in that direction?
So generally speaking With Uh whenever we've done uh we this I wanna say this is now the fourth site we've done on a Pasco County school site. And the the the the reason that we push this site to the south and where it's located. is in an effort to steer away from uh the the the children at the school. Um we're trying not to encroach on any of the buildings or
uh any of the parking areas or anything uh anywhere else uh where the children might be. So i if you look at the uh at the property that's uh Overview shot right there. Uh the north quarter of the property looks like it's encompassed by parking. And the entire uh looks like the center of the of the parcel. is uh covered up with buildings. And so that's what pushed us to I
I know that that's all that's all obvious. I see that. But uh you know, where you have it located now, if if looking at this this uh aerial, if you moved it all the way to the left, you'd be over by those ponds away from any houses. So that's what I that's the question I'm asking you. I d I wouldn't ask you to r relocate on the parking lot or on top of the buildings. Um, I'm suggesting that maybe you have room To move it. To the left, all the way over toward the w
the that pottery line, that boundary near those po those ponds. Is there any reason why you can't do that?
To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know. I would have to go back out to the property and I'd also have to get uh input from the principal of the school and the school board members that uh that we're we've been working with on the site.
Well we have a member of the s uh uh you know from the school board here. Uh Richard, do you have any input there? Yeah,
I was what I was looking at is if you look There's a green area there and those are Play courts. So I think this the area there of moving would be it'd be a narrow spot to get through. They'd have to have a Wait for the trucks to get back there. So I believe that was the idea of there to have it closest to the road there.
It looks like Richard, it looks like uh uh maybe it I'm just seeing a blue line or something. It looks like there's a almo like a little access road coming to that corner n now off of uh Off of the boulevard. You see what I'm talking about?
The blue area.
That little blue line that uh that runs, you know, from the from the boulevard To the property line on the left hand side. Between those retention areas? Yeah.
We don't own that property. The red area is what we own.
But is that an access road to you to your property?
I don't believe so because I think that um uh there's a um like a Not a water body, but it's a creek that runs through there. And you can see the Not the green areas there.
That that looks like a multi use pass path there actually.
Um the one I'm a I I'm
looking at you talking about this feature right here?
The one going up no, the one going up to the property. Yeah. This one here.
If you're if you're speaking of this line here that's basically like a track line. So it just basically shows that that's what encompasses this drainage tract here.
Mm-hmm.
So I I know this here does look like a path. But this blue line is just showing the tract. The this is this tract and then everything. This is another tract. So you see how the different blue is showing the parcel lines. So it's just these are parcel lines.
Okay.
Um, well, does anybody else have any input with regard to that?
I have just two questions maybe, or three. I read through the um public comment that they held on what the
Anyway, the more I think it was June twentieth. No. That's not anyway, at their at their public meeting that they held, they indicated that uh
That there might be some health risk to the children or to the students at that particular elementary school. And although I'm not an expert in cell towers, there has been publications about certain types of hazards that can come from it. The other question I have is if this goes on the school property, does the school district receive any uh financial reward from it, any Uh fees or any requirements like that.
Any types of uh
Um uh rental fees for the use of the property.
Yeah, Richard now. Yeah, I can answer regarding the um I guess the the issue of health. We've done a study. There's a school, John Long Middle School. Well, the cell tower was put in, we've done readings before and afterwards.
I don't think any of us on the board are experts in that field and unless I'm wrong. But uh the question of financial reward.
Yes, we do get we get money for that. And and to be frank, that I that money is used. for the students. It helps pay for extra computers. So it directly impacts the students and helps enhance their learning.
And I noticed on the uh one of the responses from Mr. Luis Alex uh Ruiz. Hope I didn't mispronounce your name. But one of the questions that came that was fr from Kevin, do you consider this Non residential area. And I guess the question really was, where could you put this tower? And his response was, his response being uh Alex Luis was that the challenge is finding A willing
landlord.
With a property that meets the code and the residential setbacks. And from what I have heard, I can see they go to the north. I guess that would be the northwest quarter up there. It looks like that's vacant land up there that they could uh pursue. Uh I think the gentleman uh Kevin has a legitimate complaint and some of the other people that have made comments at the meeting have legitimate comp complaints about the the safety and the
the visual aspects of the uh tower going up. So I I I feel that another location would be more appropriate. That that's my opinion.
Let's
hear me now.
Comments or questions?
This isn't quite a bit.
As far as the um if if you know about Bexley, it's slated for I think about 14,000 homes. So moving it. Might be okay today, but Five years from now, three years from now, one year from now, it you're just moving the problem. So it's if if it's an issue of being close to homes There's really no way where you can move it, that it's not going to be close to homes.
The the advantage to that though is that people who buy those homes up there would know the tower was there. These folks bought homes with no anticipation of having a tower in their backyard. So it's kind of like, okay, you put it in my backyard, but I'm already here, as opposed to if the tower is there and I buy a home. then I don't feel they have a legitimate complaint because they knew the tower was there.
So Excuse me, can you all hear me now? This is a turkey on solo.
I don't know who that is, but I can't understand them. Ms.
Solik, would you please state your name and your address for the record and whether you've been sworn, please?
Sure. This is Attorney Mary Solik, one twenty-one South Orange Avenue, fifteen hundred, Orlando, Florida, three two eight oh one and I have been sworn. Um I've I've I've got somebody moved me from the attendee to the panelist, so now the audio's apparently working. Um The the challenge here is that towers are allowed in all zening districts across the Casco County Code. There is no prohibition. or location of towers in residential
areas. And frankly, that's that's where the demand is being generated these days is from residential areas. They are required to be processed as a conditional use. Your code does not have any specific setback requirements for us from residential pieces. We're just supposed to consider the impact of the tower. And your code builds in language that says that just because it's visible, that's not aut an automatic
adverse impact. Your code also says that when you monitor power, you can mitigate the impact. Tower and this tower is proposed to be a monopole with flush-mount antennas which further mitigate its impact. Um The location of cell towers is driven by a number of considerations. We first of all are driven by the technology. The carriers tell us where they need to be. And then they give us a search
area and Verizon gave a search area for this particular area. And then we have to find a willing landlord, and then we have to find a property that meets the requirements of the code. So we have a three layered uh selection process. So in a What? Virtually residential community like this. We the school property offers us a unique opportunity to get in and service a residential area. on a a property on a on a
on a property that is a public use that benefits from an income from the tower. Um Let's see what other comments I had. the um the comment about the impact to children. Um Being Federal Telecommunications Act. gives local governments the ability to regulate the location of cell towers based on land use considerations. But the FCC regulates emissions for from
towers and prescribes limits on what how much of how much the the uh emissions that can come from towers and because they have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate that issue. The Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments from regulating towers based on their emissions. So the school board did their own due diligence to make to determine whether to have on an elementary school property that done studies at other elementary schools and
determined that facility would be an appropriate use of their property. And that they did not uh and they have developed other cell towers on other elementary schools in Pasco County. Uh Mr. Lech raised the issue of property values. That is not something that is regulated by your code. Impact of property values is not one of the considerations in your criteria. But we've also not seen evidence that cell towers
have either a negative or a positive impact on. uh property values we are starting to We're unaware of any property pressure across the state of Florida. That adjusts an assessment of a residential property due to its proximity to the cell tower. And we're actually starting to see. some anecdotal evidence that people actually want to live in a connected world. They want to have um really good robust wireless coverage in their homes. They
run a number of devices and they actually seek out properties in areas that have robust wireless um service. I know now that we have so many school students learning from home, it's become an even more critical issue. they have strong wireless um service in residential areas. So we are um We are limited by the technology and the design of Verizon system. They are the angles of this particular tower.
All right. Well that's your time.
Oh okay.
Mr. Chair, this is David Goldstein. I don't think she ever addressed your question, which is why you can't move the tower farther to the west. Could you please address that question?
And I um I would have to give you the same answer that Mr. Ruiz did. We would have to go back and talk to our landlord. There was a reason why our landlord wanted to put it where it was on that particular property. We'd have to go back to the school. to find out whether they'd be willing to move it further to the west. I did see some challenges moving it too far to the west because we we couldn't access them. Backsley, but Bay's Link. Because of the that drainage gauge. But that's something we'd have to go discuss with the
landlord. I can't answer that question.
So so what I'm hearing is there's there's no technology issues for Verizon to move it farther to the west. It's only whether the School board would have an issue moving into the West?
I I don't think Verizon would have an issue moving it on this particular property to the West, correct?
Usually that much of a shift is not an issue.
Well Mr. Chair, I'm not sure how important that issue is to you, if it is T you may need to continue this item until we can get an answer from the school board.
Y get us an answer back from your company, so we need to I believe, continue this and and uh until you can bring us a firm answer and we'll see if it's if we agree that it's a reasonable answer. Uh but I I think we we have an obligation to be mindful of uh of those residents. Yeah and I think as Pete said, you know, it wasn't there when they bought. You know, if it was, we it wouldn't be a problem. So um That
would be my recommendation. It's up to the board to make a motion one way or the other.
With
Germany.
Mm.
Mr. Chairman Mariano Cock. So yeah, Mike. David, I have a question to David. Um does the board have the ability to control the placement of that um Tower on that property.
Um, I would say Yeah, thank you all. Yes, but then certain reason. I mean as long as there's not some that's why I asked whether there was some technology reason why the tower had to be in that location and the answer I got back was No. So I I think the location and compatibility with adjacent You know, uses is relevant. um for the Planning Commission and the Board. As long as it's not gonna stop them from providing the
service. It doesn't sound like moving it would stop them providing from providing the service.
Thank you.
Okay. So uh Michael, if that answers your question, do any do we have a motion? I think Pete, you're gonna make a motion. I was
gonna make a motion to continue those. further study and some feedback from the company that w is doing study on the cell tower placement to determine whether or not it can be moved to another location. and still achieve the benefit that they want for the community as a whole.
So Peter, you want to give your name for the record? Peter Hansel. Okay, so Peter is making a motion. To continue, we have a second.
Can I get a clarification on the continuance date? The next planning commission is October twenty-second. I don't know if the applicant could get us that information by then. Just want a a cla a clarification. I think it can.
I think that was a yes, but I'm not positive.
Yes.
Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
Okay. So we have a Motion looking for a second.
A second. Chris Poole.
All right. Any we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion.
All in favor? Signified by roll call.
Jamie Gerardi? Hi. Michael Cox.
Bye.
Peter Hansel?
All
right.
Roberto size?
Bye.
Christopher Poole. Aye. Richard Tonello?
Aye.
Chairman Charles Gray.
Aye.
Okay, thank you. Is that it? That's
all we have for