Board denies request for 80-foot wireless bell tower at Crossland Baptist Church

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on April 9 unanimously denied a special-use permit for an 80-foot wireless communications tower proposed at Crossland Baptist Church in the county's unincorporated area. The board's vote followed public opposition, staff analysis of zoning setbacks and an appeal by Supervisor Lesko to reject the application.

Supervisor Debbie Lesko moved denial of item number 7; Supervisor Stewart seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in favor of denial. The vote followed review of planning staff materials and 11 written objections from neighbors and one letter of support, with staff saying opposition within 300 feet triggered a supermajority review requirement.

The zoning request would have allowed an 80-foot tower with an 18.5-foot antenna diameter and reduced setbacks from the required 2:1 height-to-distance standard. Planning staff told the board the county's zoning code requires a 2:1 setback for towers adjacent to residential areas — at 80 feet that equates to a 160-foot setback — while the applicant proposed setbacks of about 24 feet to the west and 75 feet to the north. Staff also noted the zoning code ordinarily limits antenna diameter to 8 feet; the applicant asked for 18.5 feet.

Bill Koning, a representative of SmartLink speaking for AT&T, told supervisors the applicant selected the church property because it offered the existing verticality and location needed to serve new housing; he said the design would be a concealed "bell tower" and that ground equipment would be hidden behind a block wall. Dozens of residents and other speakers, including Zari Barone and Roger Pickrell, disputed the stealth claim and raised health and safety concerns, proximity to schools and libraries, and the project's visual impact.

Thomas Ellsworth, director of planning and development, told the board that a cell tower is an allowed use in the zoning district but the proposed placement required a reduction in the ordinance setback and an increase in the antenna diameter. Ellsworth said the Planning and Zoning Commission vote on this case was split (one commissioner voted in favor and one against), and that the level of nearby opposition meant the board needed to weigh whether the reduced setback was appropriate.

Supervisor Lesko said she believed the proposed bell tower would be out of scale with the church and neighborhood and that the applicant could place a tower on the property only if it complied with the ordinance setback requirements. Supervisor Lesko moved denial on those grounds and the board approved the motion.

The board did not adopt alternative mitigation conditions or send the item back for redesign; the denial leaves the existing zoning standards in place on the site and leaves the option open for the applicant to propose a revised layout that meets the setback and dimensional requirements.

The denial was taken during the Planning and Zoning hearing portion of the agenda and recorded on the public record. The board emphasized decorum during the item after several disruptions during public comment.