Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Communications Tower topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board forwards 20-year renewal for Crown Castle communications tower

East Consolidated Zoning Board · April 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The East Consolidated Zoning Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve a 20-year renewal of a conditional use permit for an existing 165-foot Crown Castle communications monopole at 21100 Metcalf Ave., with staff-supported waiver of landscape screening because the compound is interior to a WaterOne facility.

The East Consolidated Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve a 20-year renewal of a conditional use permit for an existing Crown Castle communications facility at 21100 Metcalf Avenue.

Sean Penley of county planning staff said the site is an existing communications facility on a roughly 1-acre leased area inside a larger WaterOne property. "The existing facility consists of a 165-foot monopole tower with antenna and ground equipment," Penley said, and staff recommended approval of the renewal and a waiver of the standard landscaping and screening requirement because the compound is about 550 feet from the nearest public street and is largely screened by distance and the WaterOne site.

Paul Peckins, the applicant's agent for Crown Castle, said the site complies with applicable zoning and federal regulations and that the renewal aligns with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by allowing carriers to avoid coverage gaps. "We agree with staff report and would simply like to make three key points: the application is in alignment with the zoning regulations and development standards," Peckins said.

No members of the public spoke in opposition to the renewal and Penley said the county received no comments from surrounding property owners; WaterOne indicated it had no objections. Board member Ken (Chair) asked whether staff had received neighborhood comment; Penley replied, "That's correct. We have received no comments or questions from surrounding property owners."

A board member moved to recommend approval of application E26545CUP; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Planning staff will present the item to the Board of County Commissioners at its May 14 meeting in the county administration hearing room.

The recommendation includes the waiver and the standard stipulations listed in the staff report; any final decision rests with the Board of County Commissioners.