Proposed 155‑ft monopine near Roland Drive draws heavy opposition; board declines immediate denial and schedules further review

A proposal to build a 155‑foot above‑ground wireless communications facility (a “monopine”) near the terminus of Roland Drive drew lengthy public testimony on Feb. 25 before the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners.

Planning staff presented PD25CU09, describing a 2,500‑square‑foot ground equipment compound and a 155‑foot tower dressed as a pine tree and designed for multiple carriers. Staff recommended approval with conditions. At the November 2023 Planning Commission hearing, the commission voted to recommend denial; that tie‑breaking vote left the commission’s recommendation as denial. The application returned to the BCC for final action.

Dozens of nearby residents testified during the public hearing, telling the board they opposed placing a tall communications tower in the middle of a long‑established residential neighborhood. Speakers said the tower would be visible from dozens of homes, could shed fiberglass/plastic “pine” components into wetlands and lakes below, and would suppress property values. Several residents said the original tower that was formerly visible from State Road 54 had been removed and that placing new infrastructure back in the middle of homes would be inappropriate.

The applicant and its technical team argued the site fills a documented coverage and capacity gap. Verizon’s RF engineer presented before‑and‑after propagation maps showing how the proposed site would increase reliable in‑building service for many homes and relieve congestion on two nearby carrier sites (one near the Suncoast/54 corridor). The applicant said it had searched commercially zoned parcels along State Road 54 but had not secured a suitable lease there; they also said they voluntarily proposed a monopine design to reduce visual impact compared with a plain steel tower.

Neighbors urged alternatives including a galvanized monopole, relocation to a commercially zoned parcel along 54, or a decorative tower such as a bell‑tower style. A number of residents also provided a petition and said public notice about the application had been inconsistent; one commenter said a public notice sign was found face down near the site.

After public comment and applicant rebuttal, a commissioner moved to deny the conditional use application; another commissioner seconded. The motion did not receive the four votes necessary to adopt denial and therefore failed. Following additional discussion the board did not adopt a final approval or denial at the meeting and indicated staff should return with follow‑up options (including potential alternate designs or clearer exhibit material) at a future meeting; commissioners also directed staff to ensure interested neighbors receive the updated documents and to verify notice procedures.

Ending — The monopine application remains unresolved after the Feb. 25 hearing. Commissioners asked staff to return with follow‑up information; neighbors left the hearing urging the board to find a location outside established residential yards.