Neighbors urge denial as Lee County reviews 149‑foot tower; staff recommends approval with conditions

A hearing officer on July 9 heard competing claims over a proposed 149‑foot wireless communications monopole on a 10‑acre parcel in Southeast Lee County, where county staff recommended approval with conditions and dozens of nearby residents urged denial.

Hearing examiner Amanda Rivera opened the quasi‑judicial proceeding for case SEZ202500021 and outlined the process for applicant testimony, staff presentation and one‑time public comment. Mary Solick, representing Vertex Development LLC, described the proposed compound on what the record lists as 22751 Mulholland Drive and said the monopole would be sited in the northwest corner of the parcel with a 15‑foot landscape buffer and an 8‑foot opaque fence to reduce ground‑level visibility. Solick said the design would accommodate up to four carriers and identified AT&T as the anchor tenant.

Why it matters: staff and the applicant say the tower would address local network capacity and support emergency communications. Opponents say it would put an industrial structure into a rural neighborhood, lower property values, and create environmental and access risks.

AT&T network engineer George Brussell testified the company used a geographic "search ring" and capacity analysis to determine the proposed location was the only viable, buildable solution within the targeted search area at the time of the June 2025 assessment. Brussell said limitations at nearby sites — including lower tower heights and engineering constraints — meant existing towers could not meet the capacity objectives. "There's nothing more than we can push on the existing sites because we're fixed at the elevation," he said, describing constraints on raising coverage from existing structures.

County planner Brianna Schrader presented staff's review and told the hearing that staff found the application consistent with Lee County's Land Development Code and relevant LEAP plan policies, including analyses of groundwater and visual impacts. "Staff recommends approval of the request," she said, and placed a staff report, agency letters and recommended conditions into the record.

Residents pressed several lines of objection during a lengthy public‑comment period. Samantha Huxley, who said she lives a few properties from the project site, urged denial and cited what she described as "statutory, technical, and environmental failures" in the application; she also argued the parcel sits in a groundwater protection area and objected to the project's non‑stealth design. Other speakers, including long‑term property owners and 21‑acre landholders, asked for independent verification of any alleged coverage gap, raised concerns about generator noise and fuel storage, questioned the adequacy of balloon tests and photo simulations, and described poor private road conditions and seasonal flooding that they said would complicate construction and emergency access.

Neighbors also challenged whether recent AT&T co‑locations near State Road 82 undercut the asserted need for a new tower. Applicant witnesses acknowledged they learned during the review process that AT&T had colocated on a tower roughly 2.3 miles north; both applicant and staff said that did not alter staff's finding because the vocation and network topology created distinct search‑area needs.

Vertex's rebuttal focused on technical and mitigation matters. Alan Ruiz of Vertex described construction sequencing, foundation design and how carriers would install and maintain equipment. He said generators would typically be tested "once a quarter" for short periods and that carriers select fuel and storage approaches subject to permitting and environmental safeguards. The applicant also placed recorded easements into the record to demonstrate legal access along Mulholland, Silver Panther, Tina's and Wildcat roads.

On wildlife and site review, the applicant said environmental studies — including a 5,000‑page groundwater modeling report provided to staff — were part of the record, and agreed to follow water‑management district and development‑order procedures for endangered‑species surveys (including any gopher‑tortoise relocations), which would be handled at the development stage.

What happened next: the hearing officer left the record open solely to allow the parties to supplement the application with a documented geographic search‑area explanation; the applicant was ordered to file that material by the end of business on July 17, 2026. The hearing officer said she would issue a written decision after the record closed.

What remains unresolved: the hearing produced no immediate final vote or decision; the matter remains under review, with a supplemental submission due July 17 and the hearing officer to issue a written ruling once the record is complete.

Sources and attributions: quoted speakers and attributions come from participant testimony in the hearing record, including hearing examiner Amanda Rivera, applicant representatives Mary Solick and Alan Ruiz (Vertex Development LLC), AT&T engineer George Brussell, county planner Brianna Schrader, and resident commenters including Samantha Huxley and Samantha Johnson.