Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Planning panel approves 149‑foot Verizon monopole with access and lighting conditions

January 16, 2026 | Citrus County, Florida


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning panel approves 149‑foot Verizon monopole with access and lighting conditions
RBW Services Group spoke for Verizon Wireless and Vertical Bridge on a conditional-use application for a 149‑foot telecommunications monopole on a rural residential parcel. Applicant Dan Ausley said the height was reduced to 149 feet deliberately to remain below the LDC 150‑foot lighting threshold; the FAA issued a determination of no hazard and RF and engineering reviews were completed in preapplication to show setbacks and fall‑zone protections were met.

Neighbors did not oppose coverage in principle but objected to the proposed access route and construction impacts on privately maintained sandy roads and asked whether alternatives through county‑maintained roads had been considered. Larry Silvers said the proposed access apron meets his driveway and warned that private roads are fragile: “bringing the construction equipment in just to build the access road… I just see it being an issue.” Other speakers raised concerns about gopher tortoise burrows and asked about the generator type and maintenance.

Applicant said construction will require cranes and flatbeds but defended the routing choice because of tortoise setbacks and suggested roads would be brought temporarily to suitable condition with gravel and maintenance; long‑term visits would be infrequent for maintenance. The applicant confirmed a diesel backup generator would be on site and that the access would be a 15‑foot gravel drive within a 30‑foot easement.

Commission debate focused on access practicalities and whether lighting should be prohibited unless the FAA mandates it; commissioners asked to include a condition preventing added lighting unless FAA requires it and to require any required lighting be shielded to minimize off‑site impacts. On those conditions the board voted to approve the conditional use (motion carried; recorded as passing 4‑2).

What happens next: the developer will finalize permitting, record access easements and comply with the agreed conditions, including restricted lighting absent an FAA mandate and maintaining access in at least the condition left after construction.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Florida articles free in 2026

Republi.us
Republi.us
Family Scribe
Family Scribe