Supervisors deny AT&T-backed ‘bell tower’ at Crossland Baptist Church after neighborhood opposition

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a special-use permit for a wireless communication facility proposed at Crossland Baptist Church, a church site in District 4, after extended public comment and discussion with county planning staff.

The permit request would have allowed an 80-foot-tall wireless tower with a bell-tower “stealth” design and a larger-than-code antenna array at a 3.2-acre church parcel. Planning staff told the board the application included a request to reduce the zoning setback that normally requires a 2-to-1 height-to-distance ratio and sought an antenna diameter larger than the code limit.

Tom Ellsworth, director of Planning and Development, explained the technical request to the board: “A cell tower is allowed by right within the zoning district. The zoning code stipulates that for a cell tower that’s adjacent to residential or rural development, they would need a 2 to 1 setback, height to distance to the property line. At 80 feet, that would require 160 foot setback from any property line on this site.” He said the applicant was instead proposing setbacks of roughly 24 feet to the west and 75 feet to the north and was seeking an antenna diameter of 18.5 feet where the zoning code allows an 8-foot diameter.

Bill Koning, appearing remotely for SmartLink and representing AT&T, described why the company selected the church parcel. “When we’re assigned a ring from the engineer in an area of need, the first thing we look for is existing verticality...so the next thing we’ll look for is a commercial or industrial parcel to put something up on. There was none of those in this area...we feel this church location was the best opportunity to do that, to provide the most amount of coverage,” Koning said.

Neighbors and other residents spoke in opposition. Zari Barone told the board the proposal was “an 80 foot wireless tower proposed near schools, libraries, family neighborhoods in District 4” and argued the plan “is a real intrusion on real people.” Multiple letters and emails were filed with planning staff: Ellsworth said the county had received 11 letters of opposition and one in support, and that opposition within 300 feet of the site triggered a supermajority vote requirement.

Supervisor Debbie Lesko moved denial of the item, saying the proposed bell-tower design “is not a stealth design. It towers above the church, seems to look out of place.” Supervisor Amber Stewart seconded the motion. The board voted aye on the motion to deny, and the denial carried unanimously.

Board members and staff emphasized the limits of the ruling: county staff noted a monopole or tower remains an allowed use in the zoning district if it complies with setback and design requirements. As Lesko noted during the discussion: the applicant could still use the site if they follow the ordinance’s 2-to-1 setback; the denial reflected the board’s view that the proposal as presented did not fit the neighborhood context.

The denial closes the current application as presented. County staff and the applicant did not announce a follow-up filing at the meeting.

The board took the vote during its regular agenda; the item drew several public commenters and a multi-member exchange with planning staff about zoning code specifics, alternate stealth designs used elsewhere in the valley, and the extent of neighborhood opposition.