Council pauses decision on 195-foot Edgewater cell tower after neighbors object; hearing tabled to July 22

Volusia County Council temporarily paused consideration of a special-exception application on June 2 for a 195-foot communications monopole at 2665 Volco Road in the Edgewater area, voting to table the item to a July 22 hearing and asking the applicant to investigate alternative siting options.

County planning staff explained the application requested an exemption to the county’s 1,000-foot separation requirement for towers from residential structures; the code allows the council to reduce that separation to no less than 500 feet. Staff and the Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission had recommended approval, subject to conditions. Applicants from multiple carriers — represented by attorney Joey Posey — and their RF engineers and planners said the site fills a documented coverage gap on and near I-95, and that the proposed structure’s engineered fall radius is small (applicants provided a certified fall-radius analysis they said showed a ~95-foot fall zone).

Appraiser Dave Reid testified he found no detectable adverse effect on nearby residential sale prices in multiple local study areas containing existing towers and concluded the proposed structure would not affect market values for neighboring properties.

Neighbors told the council the proposed tower would sit very near existing houses (property-line distances cited in public comment included roughly 99 feet to one neighbor’s line, about 500 feet to another home and 748 feet to a residence that would otherwise be subject to the 1,000-foot rule). Several adjacent property owners asked the council either to deny the application or require relocation. Mike Bennett, Robert Brown and Greg Petzak told the council they had previously offered alternate locations on private property and questioned why the applicant had not pursued the alternatives earlier.

County attorney staff reminded council members that federal law (47 U.S.C. § 332) constrains local land-use denials that would effectively prohibit personal wireless service and that the council’s decision must be supported by competent, substantial evidence; staff also noted aesthetics and property-value impacts require factual, admissible evidence to sustain a denial.

Councilman Robbins moved to deny the application but then amended his approach and moved to table the item to allow the applicant and neighbors to investigate alternative sites; Councilman Kent seconded the motion to table. The motion to table to a date certain — July 22 — passed unanimously (6–0). The applicant agreed to toll the administrative 'shot clock' for tower siting while the parties explore alternatives.

Ending: The application remains unresolved but will return to council on July 22. Staff and the applicant are expected to report whether alternative candidate sites are feasible and whether the applicant will pursue them instead of the current location.