Orlando council approves 105-foot Starwood communication tower, requires monopole design

Orlando City Council on May 19 approved a conditional use permit for a 105-foot communications tower in the Starwood planned development, adopting a hearing officer's recommended order but adding a condition that the structure be built as a monopole rather than the proposed monopine.

The decision followed a quasi-judicial appeal of a municipal planning board recommendation to approve the tower. Elizabeth Dang, the city's planning director, told council the applicant reduced its original 150-foot request to 105 feet and that the revised plan met the city's separation and development standards. "Staff's recommendation is to adopt the hearing officer's recommended order," Dang said.

The petitioners argued the application was incomplete and dangerous to wetlands and wildlife. Petitioner David Grau said the tower would "irreversibly harm our community and natural resources," and criticized the administrative record for lacking alternative-site analysis, radio-frequency testing, and environmental assessment. He and other neighbors submitted evidence they said showed visibility from nearby homes, proximity to wetlands, and sightings of state-listed wildlife.

AnthemNet Inc., the applicant, represented by attorney Mary Solick, maintained the company had completed the customary pre-application technical work and complied with the code. "By the time we get to you, we have done title work, we have secured FAA approval, we have done a NEPA assessment, we have secured FCC approval," Solick told council. She said testimony before the hearing officer showed the application met code standards and that the site owner was the only landowner who offered a location in the search area.

In his presentation at the hearing officer stage, staff explained the applicable separation rule: for the applicable residential zoning, a tower must meet the greater of a 2-foot separation or 300% of the tower height. At 105 feet, the required separation is 315 feet; staff said the proposal provides about 330 feet. The applicant said the planned tower would be engineered to accept multiple carriers and the code allows up to an additional 20 feet later for colocation without repeating the distance analysis.

Council discussion focused on two strands: compliance with technical code criteria and neighborhood concerns over visual, environmental and long-term impacts. Petitioners pointed to a 56-foot distance between the proposed tower site and a mapped wetland, claimed sightings of Florida sandhill cranes in the area, and supplied photographs and testimony about material shedding from other camouflage towers. The applicant said no evidence linked the tower to wildlife impacts and that the hearing officer found no competent substantial evidence to justify denial.

Commissioner Sheehan moved to adopt the hearing officer's recommended order but to require a standard monopole in place of the proposed monopine; Commissioner Burns seconded. Council adopted the motion. Two commissioners said they would not support the approval during debate.

The action grants the conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the updated staff report and the added design requirement to use a monopole, and it follows the hearing officer's findings that the application met the specific code criteria for a communications tower in the Starwood PD.

The hearing record and city staff materials cited multiple code sections governing conditional uses and communications facilities; petitioners urged the council to weigh additional environmental and alternative-site evidence they said was not considered at earlier stages. The applicant and staff said applicable regulatory approvals (FAA, FCC, and other technical steps) had been obtained or were in process and that the site owner had demonstrated it was the only willing property owner in the immediate search area.

The council's action resolves the local land-use step for the project; subsequent steps for construction, permitting and any required state or federal approvals remain necessary before equipment installation.

Council members urged staff to consider clearer notice or PD language for future developments to reduce neighbor surprise when telecommunications facilities are proposed.