Murfreesboro zoning board defers decision on tower antenna amendment after tie vote; applicant agrees to indefinite deferral

The Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals on March 25 split on a proposed amendment to the special use permit for a 150-foot wireless telecommunications monopole at 2117 North Thompson Lane and ultimately agreed to defer consideration indefinitely after the applicant consented.

City planning staff told the board the application (Z25010), filed by Adrian Quintero on behalf of SBA, seeks to remove a prior condition requiring antennas to be of stealth construction (mounted inside the pole) and to permit up to three exterior flush mounts on the existing tower. Planning staff reviewed the tower’s approval history, noted neighbors’ earlier concerns about visual impacts and submitted revised, narrower mount drawings that staff described as a compromise.

"They have submitted revised plans that are not as wide as last year’s proposal," said Mr. Bauman, addressing Chairman Young and members of the board and summarizing staff’s recommended conditions, which included obtaining all required permits, site-plan approval from the Planning Department, a 150-foot maximum height limit, compliance with the city’s discontinuance/removal rules, and structural analyses for each exterior mount.

Jeff Taylor, the SBA representative in the audience, described the proposed flush mount as a compromise that "allows the carriers to deploy the technology and equipment that they need to serve the customers and still keep it somewhat contained." He also provided aerial distances to nearby neighborhoods when asked: about 0.65 miles (roughly 3,400 feet) to Riverbend and about 1,200–1,300 feet to parts of Riverview across the river.

Board members weighed the tower’s visual impact against the public benefit of added capacity. Vice Chair Halliburton said he was "a little disappointed" the revised design was not more stealthy than the existing internal-antenna configuration, while others said added capacity could reduce the need for additional towers.

A motion to approve the amendment subject to staff conditions produced a tie on roll call: Mr. Batchelor voted no, Mr. Tibbs and Chair Young voted yes, and Vice Chair Halliburton voted no. Members and counsel discussed whether a tie would constitute denial under procedure or whether to defer to full membership. After deliberations and a proposal that the applicant return with a more current "2026" stealth-minded design and show how all three carriers would be accommodated on the top section, the applicant agreed to an indefinite deferral.

"We appreciate your willingness to cooperate to help us get to a solution," Chair Young said after the board voted to accept the applicant’s consent and defer consideration. Staff asked the applicant to provide clearer design direction and, if possible, mockups showing all three carriers and a stealthier approach for board review.

Outcome: The board withdrew the prior tied vote by consent and voted to defer consideration of Z25010 indefinitely so the applicant can submit revised plans. No final permit amendment was approved.

Next steps: Staff will work with the applicant on revised designs and present them to the Board of Zoning Appeals at a future meeting if the applicant requests rehearing or returns with updated materials.