Board grants variance to allow 199‑ft communications tower on Jerome Adams property despite neighboring objections

The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals voted 4–1 Aug. 28 to grant a variance that reduces the required setback for a 199‑foot communications monopole proposed on property owned by Jerome Michael Adams on Newmarket Turner Road in Mechanicsville.

Staff said the application (VAAP25‑0035) requests relief from CZO section 51.3.0.91(b)(10), which requires a setback equal to 100% of tower height from any structure not associated with the tower site. The applicant seeks to locate a 199‑foot monopole (including a 4‑foot lightning rod) such that the distance from the tower center to the eastern adjoining property line would be about 57.7 feet and to the western property line about 96.2 feet; staff noted the tower meets the 199‑foot setback from the nearest residence (the Menna house), which is about 338.9 feet from the monopole base.

Applicant counsel told the board the parcel is narrow, wedge‑shaped and has challenging topography that constrained alternative siting options; the applicant also provided evidence that the proposed site is needed to fill a documented wireless coverage gap and described three years of outreach to potential site hosts in the search ring. The applicant supplied an engineering statement from a tower manufacturer and engineer indicating the monopole is designed to bend and collapse within the fenced compound in a catastrophic failure rather than fall as a freestanding beam.

Neighbors and adjacent landowners testified at the hearing. Vail Lord, who said he is the contract purchaser of a home directly adjacent and about 530 feet from the proposed tower, urged approval, saying he depends on reliable cell and internet service for remote work and medical communications. Other neighbors — including Anthony Mena (whose lot contains a storage container the applicant’s survey later showed is about 212 feet from the monopole) and Jessica and Keith Gagnon — expressed concern about safety, the “fall radius,” property values and the ability to build accessory structures on their properties in the future.

The applicant and staff explained two relevant facts the board weighed: (1) one adjoining parcel to the east is encumbered by a conservation easement that prohibits future structures on that land, and (2) while a portion of the Menna parcel falls within the calculated fall zone, the Menna house itself is well beyond the tower height setback and much of the fall zone on that parcel is encumbered by resource‑protection overlays (steep slopes, streams) that limit disturbance. Counsel also confirmed certified mailings and additional outreach to owners in the search ring; staff said two written public comments were on record.

Board members questioned outreach efforts, the engineering assurances about collapse behavior, the FCC “shot clock” timeline for wireless siting applications and whether the county should consider clearer local definitions for tower types given changing technology. After discussion, one board member voted against the variance; the motion to approve carried 4–1. Staff will prepare an order reflecting the board’s decision within 60 days; a 30‑day appeal period follows the signed order.