Planning commission deadlocks on recommendation for 195-foot Vertical Bridge tower after strong local opposition

The Washington County Planning Commission deadlocked 2-2 on Monday in a recommendation over a proposed 195-foot wireless telecommunications tower on property owned by Rex and Wanda Bush, leaving the final decision to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners at its Aug. 21 meeting.

The tower, proposed by Vertical Bridge (authorized representative James McNichol), would sit on a roughly 75-acre parcel off Gilberts Mill Road and include space for two additional carriers to co-locate equipment, county planner Don McDonald said. Planning staff posted a NEPA-related environmental review and an RF justification, and staff recommended approval to the commission.

Commissioners Roger Hagen and Jared Highet voted to deny the commission’s recommendation; Commissioner Richard Kunde and school-board representative Kyle Newsome voted against denial, producing a tie. County attorney Fuqua read relevant state law to remind commissioners of limits on considering health effects when an applicant demonstrates compliance with applicable regulations.

Why it matters: the project drew extensive public opposition from residents who live near the proposed site and from others in the southeast portion of Washington County. Commenters cited potential impacts on property values, alleged health risks from radiofrequency emissions, the tower’s visual impact and local infrastructure concerns including wetlands and flood-prone terrain. Because the planning commission’s vote produced no recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners will make the final determination on Aug. 21.

The application and technical justification James McNichol, the applicant’s authorized representative, told the commission the tower is intended to fill coverage and capacity gaps and to "enhance the local 911 emergency call system." McNichol said the company provided propagation maps and a needs analysis and that the proposed facility was sited after considering soils, geotechnical studies and avoidance of wetlands and floodplain.

County planning staff described the proposal as a special-exception request paired with a major development review. Staff noted the proposed 195-foot self-supporting tower meets the county’s updated setback standard (setback equal to tower height) and includes room for two additional carriers to colocate equipment at the base. Staff said a neighborhood information meeting on July 17 drew 19 attendees, all of whom opposed the project, and that the applicant posted an RF/NEPA package on the county website.

Public comments: concerns and counterpoints Residents voiced multiple objections during the public-comment period. Alan Foran, who lives on Gilbert Mill Road, disputed the applicant’s map placement and said the tower would be "on the southeastern end of the property" rather than in the center, and that remaining timber and hurricane-damaged trees offer little screening. William Gilbert, a property owner adjacent to the site, said he had researched scientific studies and told commissioners he was "scared" about potential health effects and worried about impacts to pollinators and trees.

Several commenters raised flooding and ground-stability concerns. Jeanette Boeran said portions of the area are flood-prone and include cavities and springs that "fill up with flood water," and asked how tower foundations would be engineered for those conditions. Beth Malvin described repeated driveway washouts and asked how a deep concrete foundation would be stabilized in the local soils.

Other residents disputed that coverage shortfalls exist where they live. Matt Costin, who said he has lived in the county two years and served as a communications sergeant, said he regularly gets service and has collected signatures for a petition opposing the tower.

Regulatory limits on health arguments During the hearing, the county attorney read a state provision (referenced in the meeting as Florida Statute 365.172) and reminded commissioners that local governments may not deny properly completed wireless facility applications on the basis of RF emissions if those emissions comply with federal standards. Staff and the applicant reiterated that the applicant’s materials include an RF justification and that compliance with federal standards is the baseline for emissions questions.

Next steps Because the planning commission’s vote was a tie, the matter will be forwarded to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision at its 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 21. Planning staff and the applicant indicated additional tower applications elsewhere in the county may be forthcoming.

Additional planning items Before and after the tower hearing, staff told commissioners the county will be updating its land development code and transmitting a comprehensive-plan update to the state later in the year; the planner said transmittal must occur by Nov. 22 and that staff expects several small-scale future land-use amendments in September.