Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board recommends Hunter Ridge 149-ft "monopine" tower with maintenance condition after residents object
Summary
Diamond Communications' planned 149-foot monopine at Hunter Ridge drew multiple residents' objections over visibility, property-value and health concerns; staff and the applicant argued engineers and carrier metrics show a coverage gap and two carriers committed. The board recommended approval with a maintenance condition, unanimous 6-0.
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bonita Springs Planning & Zoning Board voted to recommend a plan development amendment allowing a 149-foot monopine (monopole camouflaged as a pine) at the Hunter Ridge maintenance parcel after hearing technical testimony and six public speakers.
Mattiah John, representing Diamond Communications LLC, told the board the proposal would place a 149-foot monopine on a portion of the maintenance/treatment tract in Hunter Ridge (STRAP 064826030010G01C). "I come before you today with staff recommendation of approval for a planned development amendment to construct a 149 foot tall monopole style communication tower with monopine tree camouflaging techniques applied to it," he said. John said the monopine is engineered for up to four carriers and that T-Mobile would be the primary anchor with Verizon Wireless planning to collocate.
The applicant provided photo simulations, equipment-compound plans, and radio-frequency (RF) coverage maps showing local signal gaps. John and project engineers said trees and localized terrain scatter signals in the neighborhood, and modeling showed antennas need to be at roughly 140 feet to clear the canopy and provide reliable indoor and outdoor service. The applicant said the nearest house is about 233 feet east of the proposed monopine (STRAP 054826B41500340 as stated by the applicant) and that the site was selected to avoid wetlands and to minimize impacts to golf-course operations.
Staff (Community Development) recommended approval after applying both the special-exception and PD-amendment standards from the city code. Staff noted the site is already developed (maintenance/treatment area), that environmental impacts are minimal, and that the approval would be tied to the specific STRAP so it could not be moved to another site without returning to the board. The staff report included standard conditions (landscape replacement if damaged, stormwater review, engineering permitting and construction conditions) and staff said the board could add a maintenance schedule as a condition; the applicant agreed to a continuing maintenance commitment if the board required it.
Six residents spoke in the public-comment period. Francancy Morad (12737 Hunter Ridge Drive) opposed the siting and said a 150-foot industrial structure within 375 feet of homes would harm neighborhood character and property values and raised long-term health concerns. "A 150-foot industrial structure within 375 feet of existing homes is not compatible with the character of this residential area," she said. Several other speakers (Adriana Bonifer, Brad Weman, Kevin Keane, Jack Wland) raised similar concerns about aesthetics, property values and uncertainty about long-term RF effects. Don Huppich, general manager at Hunter Ridge, urged approval on safety grounds, describing past hurricane response challenges and saying the extra capacity would help emergency communications.
Applicant and carrier representatives told the board the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules limit local authority to regulate RF emissions; they said RF safety decisions are reviewed at the federal level and that zoning decisions cannot be based on perceived RF health effects. The applicant also said they had held community outreach, including a town hall with more than 100 attendees, and that the Hunter Ridge Community Association participated in site selection and lease negotiations.
A board member moved to grant the PD amendment with a continuing maintenance requirement to be reviewed by planning staff; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously on roll call (Member Brown, Member Doogie, Member Lombardo, Chairman Herschensson, Member Lohan and Member Townsen voted yes).
Because the action is a recommendation, the approval advances to city council for final action and the applicant must still obtain local development order and building permits, complete engineering reviews, and meet any FAA, FCC or state requirements that apply.

