Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Towers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler County planning board recommends denial of proposed 150‑ft telecom tower in Daytona North area
Summary
The Flagler County Planning & Development Board on July 14 recommended denial (6–1) of a special‑use request to construct a 150‑foot camouflage monopole at 2512 Orange Street, citing its proximity to residential uses and availability of other tower options; residents raised health, property‑value and wildlife concerns during public comment.
The Flagler County Planning & Development Board voted July 14 to recommend denial of project 2026030052, a special‑use application to construct a camouflage monopole telecommunications tower at 2512 Orange Street.
Staff planner Simone Kenny presented the application and photo simulations, saying the proposal is for a 150‑foot monocpole designed to resemble a pine tree, with capacity for three carriers and a 4,900‑square‑foot lease area. Kenny said the site is about 20 acres, primarily in low‑density residential future land use, and that the proposed lease area meets required setbacks from property lines and has been shown to allow carrier collocation. She also noted the structure would not require FAA notification and that the applicant provided coverage maps and a search of nearby towers (no towers within two miles; three within four miles).
Board members questioned coverage overlap and whether alternative, less‑intrusive sites were considered. Rob Schmidt of Gulfstream Towers, the applicant, told the board the location was chosen to maximize coverage with a single tower to reduce the need for multiple structures.
During public comment multiple nearby residents said they oppose putting a tower in the heart of a residential area. Cindy Rayson, who lives one lot from the proposed lease area, said she researched zoning when she purchased in 2020 and believes cell towers were not allowed; she told the board she fears loss of property value and described health and wildlife concerns. Other neighbors cited ‘‘umbrella’’ or null‑zone effects, loss of pollinators, and visual impacts. A smaller group of residents said improved mobile coverage would address emergency‑call gaps.
After discussion, a motion to recommend denial was made and members cited two specific special‑siting criteria — the nature of adjacent uses and the availability of suitable existing towers or other structures — as grounds for the recommendation. The motion carried 6–1.
Because the planning board is a recommending body, the matter will move to the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision; the planning board record will include written public comment. Simone Kenny recommended the board identify which specific criteria are not met in any recommendation for denial.
The hearing transcript indicates staff received written public comments before and after the agenda was published; those documents were included in the record.
