TRC delays vote on Sandestin cell‑tower replacement after public objections; seeks Eglin review and photo proof of notice

The Walton County Technical Review Committee on April 15 continued consideration of a minor development order to replace an existing cell tower (MIN25-000137) in District 4 to the May 6 TRC meeting after sustained public comment and committee requests for additional interagency review and notice documentation.

Staff introduced the application as a minor development order submitted to replace a tower located at 1885 MacBayou Road and said the file had been re‑advertised and that staff had cleared most technical comments. "All comments have been addressed," staff said and entered the staff report into the record. The applicant, identified in the record as Mr. Davis, said he was present to answer questions and that advertising requirements had been met.

Several members of the public urged the committee to withhold action until additional reviews and records were produced. Tabitha (last name not stated) said she could not find evidence that Eglin had been notified or that Eglin had approved past permitting actions and urged the county to ensure Eglin review because the site is near active ranges. Alan Osborne, who introduced himself for the record, argued the Sandestin DRI has long-standing noncompliance and cited prior letters, court findings and technical reports. Osborne urged the committee to refer the matter to the Board of County Commissioners for a broader review and said "anything that sticks up any distance and height should be reviewed by Eglin first."

Todd Roark, a member of the public, cited Florida statute 380.0617 — which he summarized as restricting permits if a developer is not in substantial compliance with a development order — and raised concerns about deed restrictions and possible archaeological protections for unmarked human burial sites (statute 872.05). Roark asked whether the county had complied with the fiduciary duties he attributed to the approving authority and said he had requested relevant records.

The applicant replied that the tower is a replacement for a facility that has existed since about 2006, said the team had met technical and notice requirements "twice" and provided a sign affidavit; he also said a notice‑of‑proposed‑change process is available if the county concludes a change in the DRI is required. County staff and counsel said they had consulted the county attorney's office and believed they could continue processing the application; staff also warned that, if litigation later proves the approvals were improper, the primary legal and financial risk would fall to the applicant.

After discussion, a committee member moved and successfully amended a motion to continue the item to the May 6 TRC meeting with conditions: staff should attempt to obtain any comments from Eglin, provide photographic evidence of sign postings showing identifiable landmarks so their locations can be verified, and confirm whether additional notice beyond the submitted sign affidavit is required for a DO within a DRI. The motion carried by voice vote.

The committee recorded the sign affidavit in the meeting record and directed staff to place any clarifying email from the planning director into the file. The applicant may reapply or proceed once the requested clarifications and any responses from Eglin are received.