Planning panel approves 149‑foot Verizon monopole with access and lighting conditions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The PDC approved a 149‑foot monopole proposed by Verizon/Vertical Bridge to close a local coverage gap, adding a condition that tower lighting not be added unless required by the FAA and that any lighting be shielded. Commissioners and neighbors raised access, construction-impact and wildlife (gopher tortoise) concerns; vote was 4-2 in favor.
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.