Planning board denies request to raise concealed wireless facility to 185 feet, citing variance criteria

The Nassau County Planning and Zoning Board on Sept. 2 voted to deny a variance (V 20-25-003) seeking to raise the maximum height of a concealed wireless facility from 150 feet to 185 feet in the OR zoning district. The motion to deny, moved by Board member Flick and seconded by Board member Henson, carried by the board.

Staff presentation and recommendation Stephanie Kaiser of the Planning Department explained this quasi-judicial matter and reviewed the seven variance criteria in LDC §5.05(e)(1–7). Staff concluded the request did not meet the majority of the criteria and recommended denial. Kaiser said a wireless facility meeting the code maximum of 150 feet could be constructed on the property and that the applicant’s need for additional height resulted from technological and equipment constraints rather than a special condition of the land itself.

Applicant argument Chip Flowers, representing the applicant (Vertical Bridge) and the landowner (Charles and Ruth Fouracre Living Trust), said the extra height would close a gap in coverage along County Road 119 and would avoid the need to build a separate tower to provide service in that corridor. Flowers said AT&T equipment on a nearby SBA site to the east would require the additional elevation to prevent a coverage gap and that the applicants had provided a balloon study and propagation maps intended to show minimal visual impact.

Board discussion and rationale Board members questioned whether the claimed hardship arose from the land or from equipment needs and discussed precedent and competitive advantage among carriers. Several members emphasized the ordinance’s uniform 150-foot limit and noted that granting a site-specific variance could create an uneven playing field and permit one carrier to gain a permanent advantage by placing higher equipment on a tower. A member cited a past high-profile example of a tower granting advantage to one carrier.

Motion and vote Board member Flick moved, and Board member Henson seconded, a motion finding that the record did not contain competent and substantial evidence to meet the variance review criteria of LDC §5.05(e)(1–7) and recommending denial of V 20-25-003. The motion carried by recorded voice vote; board members voting in favor of denial included Fending, Henson, Morris, Flick, Brantley and Chair Blue (one member was absent). Staff had previously moved the project documents into the record, including propagation maps and balloon study materials submitted with the application.

Because this was a quasi-judicial hearing, the board’s decision was made on the record and the denial was framed around the lack of a land-based hardship and the county code’s intent to preserve uniform standards for wireless facilities.