meeting to order, please. Before we hear the cases today, we have I have guidelines to read in which the manner this board operates. So, if you'll bear with me while I read everything. This is a public hearing and we are the zoning board of adjustments for Putham
County, Florida. We operate under the authority of articles 11 and 12 of the land development code as amended. The primary responsibility of the board is to hear and decide appeals challenging final determinations made by the planning and development services department under the land development
code and to hear and act upon requests for variances, special use permits, non-conforming use determinations, and preliminary development plans under the land development code. A variance is a relaxation of the requirements of the zoning code. In a
particular case where because of unusual circumstances, a little enforcement of our zoning code would result in undue or unnecessary hardship. The zoning code permits us to uh authorize variances only for height, size of structure, size of yards, and open spaces. If we grant a
variance, we may impose reasonable conditions on the use of the property which must be satisfied if the variance is to remain valid. The standards we use in deciding whether or not to grant a variance are listed in section 45-833 of the land development code.
A special use permit is special permission to use property in a fashion in which the zoning classification of the property does not automatically permit. If we grant a special use permit, we may impose reasonable conditions on the use of the property which must be satisfied if the special
use permit is to remain valid. Unlike a change in the zoning classification, as a general rule, a special use permit only applies to the specific use requested in the application for a special use permit. The standards we use in deciding whether or not to grant a
special use permit are listed in se section 45-1083 of the land development code. Procedurally, we will call each case by name and number. A member of the staff will then brief briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then
take any comments from the applicant or their representative followed by public comments concerning the request. Please direct all comments or statements to the board and not to other people in the audience. Before speaking, we will ask each person to be recognized come
forward to the lectern and identify his or herself by name and address. After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we will entertain a motion from the board. The motion will be voted on by board members and become our final order. Any decision made by this board
can be appealed to the circuit court. However, any appeal must be filed within 30 days after the board of adjustment has rendered the final order which is being appealed. Are there any questions? Before the first case is heard, all of those wishing to speak will need to be
sworn in. So, will the notary please administer the oath? Please stand. Okay. Be before we hear from staff, we need to do an exparte or um conflict of interest roll call. Mark Fischer,
>> no. >> Ron West, >> no. >> Linda Osborne, >> no. >> Willie McGee, >> no. >> Hunter Winkkelman, >> I have had exppartate communication with multiple members of the public and it will not affect my vote here today. >> Dan Dodge, >> no. >> Troy Weaver,
>> no. >> Mr. Perry, do you have anything else to ask of Mr. Wingman? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, staff, if you're ready. Our first case today is special use permit 26-0000003. >> Thank you, ma'am. For the record, Ethan
Thompson, uh, presenting special use permit uh, 26-00003 for a communications tower in the agricultural zoning district. Uh, the applicants are Next Tower Development Group. Uh, agents are David Boof and
Holtzman Vogel and Joel Russo was added as well. Um, parcel ID is 03- 09-27-0000-0030-0000. They will be leasing 0.147 acres on a 42.99 approximate acre parcel located on the west side of West River Road in
Palaca. The future land use is agriculture and the zoning district is agriculture. The subject parcel is 42.99 acres in the A zoning district. Uh the tower site is proposed to be in the area of undeveloped partially wooded land on a
lease space of 6,400 square feet. Uh the request is for a special use permit to develop a 265 ft 255 ft with a 10-ft a pertinance communication uh here and referred to as cell tower. Uh land development code section 45-72E10
requires a special use permit to locate a cell tower in the a zoning district. uh and that the cell tower must meet or will meet the supplemental regulations of 45172. Here is an aerial of uh the area,
the zoning, the future land use, the flood zone, uh our GI the Putham County GIS maps, uh jurisdictional wetland layer here. Um and then these are documents supplied by the applicant. This is their aerial.
Um and you can see here and on the next slide there is a gray line that kind of in encircles the proposed development area that is also jurisdictional wetlands. Um so there are additional wetlands on the
property. And then I've also got uh a map they provided of some other service towers. Um they appear to be one of the only ones in the area or at least one of the only ones within three and a half miles.
Pursuant to section 45-1083 uh the zoning board shall not grant a special use permit unless it makes the follow following written findings. Uh staff finds that the criteria has been met as the use with the uses sorry staff finds the criteria is consistent with
the agricultural future land use element of the comprehensive plan for a type one community facility. Staff finds the criteria has been met for section 45-72e4 uh as it as as it specifically requires a special use permit for a s cell tower
in the a zoning district. Um staff does not anticipate any adverse impact or restrictions. Uh the closest residential zoning district Oh, this didn't get updated. I apologize. Uh the special use will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the area nor impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for permitted uses. Uh staff does not anticipate that this will substantially diminish or impair property values uh nor impede orderly development of the area.
Uh the site will be accessed off of West River Road by a 30-foot ingress egress easement. Parking and on-site loading and unloading birds are not required as the proposed development will be an unmanned communication tower. Uh the proposed tower only requires periodic trips by technicians to maintain the
equipment uh and will not require any measurable traffic impacts. Therefore, the proposed facility will not detrimentally affect the existing level of service to the roadway. As stated, ingress and egress is going to be provided by an easement off of West River Road. Um, the proposed
development will be required to go through the DRC process, development review process, during which the DRC will be tasked with reviewing the development plans for compliance with the access management standards of the land development code. Uh, this will the the DRC process will
include screening and buffering. Uh the applicant has proposed vegetative buffering between the existing wetlands and and additional screening from West River Road. Um they will be reviewed in detail at DRC. Uh no lighting will be has been proposed
except for what is required by the Federal Aviation Administration as well as uh a sign that is clearly visible at the entrance to the tower site which identifies the owner operator of the site with their contacts. Uh, no hazardous substances are proposed
for the development and the tower is proposed to be located an adequate distance from residential structures. The tower is designed with a 50-foot fall zone, fall radius zone so that in the event of a collapse, the tower would fall within the tower lease
premises. Um, the communication tower should not pose an adverse effect to the health and welfare health and welfare of the residents of Putham County. And then here we get to the additional findings specifically for a special use permit um for a cell tower which is that
colo the first first of which is that collocation on an existing tower or structure is not viable. Um the applicant is proposing this tower here to fill a gap in the uh T-Mobile coverage area and the applicant has indicated there are no other towers within their related search area um
within three miles. Uh and here I say reference that propagation map I showed earlier. The second is that the tower will be compatible with the existing contiguous uses and with the general character of the neighborhood. Um the tower is a self-supporting 265 ft lattice style
tower and will be sat back approximately 219 ft from West River Road and 298.5 ft uh if a later variance is approved from the nearest residential district. Uh the mitigating effect of any existing or proposed landscaping, fencing, other
structures in the area. Uh the subject proper property is heavily wooded to the south and the west property lines which will greatly help with visual buffering. The north and east property lines don't have any kind of necessarily wooded vegetation. Um but they have included and proposed vegetative
buffering and screening for the entire tower site in their plans. Um they've also depicted a six-foot security fence surrounding the tower site. Um again the fencing buffering and screening requirements will be reviewed in detail at DRC.
Um proximity of the cell tower to existing or proposed buildings or structures. The nearest residential structure is approximately 912 ft from the proposed tower. Uh the nature of uses on surrounding properties. The property to the north is
a single family residence. Uh the property across the street to the east is zoned residential but currently has a green belt exemption for a commercial agricultural operation. Uh the property to the south has a single family residence. Um it is not depicted on the plans because it is farther away than
the 912 ft residence to the north. Uh and then the properties to the west are vacant. Uh the property is relatively flat with partial wetland and tree coverage. Um wetlands will be the big one for this project. Uh, the property appears to
contain wetlands in the southwest corner and the applicant's site plan depicts additional wetlands which would prevent the applicant from developing any farther away from that residentially zoned property to the east. Uh, the proposed development as it is depicted would avoid impacting any jurisdictional wetlands.
Uh, the proposed communication tower is not anticipated to have any significant detrimental impacts on adjacent property values. Uh, however, only a certified appraiser could provide an expert opinion addressing property values. uh and that the design standards in this
subject subsection have all been met. Design standards are met with the proposed 265 ft communication tower and will be verified upon DRC and permit review. Conclusion recommendation. The applicant has requested a special use permit to
allow a 265 ft cell tower in the A zoning district. Staff finds the proposed communication tower meets the criteria for a special use permit and the additional criteria for a cell tower to be located in the a zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following
conditions. Uh they must obtain DRC review and approval. Obtain and maintain any applicable county, state, or federal licenses and registrations. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, they must submit a shity bond, standby letter of credit, cash, or other shy acceptable to
the county administrator, payable to the board of county commissioners of Putnham County equal to 150% of the estimated cost of dismantling the communication tower as required by section 45-172 prior to the issuance of a building permit. provide an easement granted by the fee owner of the remaining land
underlying the tower in favor of Putnham County to access the communication tower site for removal of the subject tower as provided for here in prior to the issuance of a building permit. provide written permission from all record owners, beneficial owners, and lease holders of the tower uh in a form
acceptable to the county for county staff, agents, or contractors to enter upon the subject site and to remove the subject communication tower located there if it is found to be in violation of the sections. Every 10 years from the completion of construction, the owner of the tower must submit a structural engineering
report signed and sealed by a Florida engineer detailing the condition of the tower, its bearing capacity, and its current load. Are there any questions for staff? >> Any questions from for staff? >> Okay, thank you.
>> Before we hear from the applicant today, let's do a site visit roll call. >> Rayurn, >> Mark Fischer, >> no. >> Ron West, >> yes. >> Linda Osborne, >> yes. >> Willie McGee, >> yes. >> Hunter Winkkelman, >> yes. Dan Dodge.
>> Yes. >> Troy Weaver. >> Yes. >> Okay. At this time, we will hear from the applicant and the agent. I don't know if I'm going to mess up your name. Is David. Is it both?
>> Oh, you Okay. All right. Well, let's for the record, let's uh state your name and address. >> Absolutely. My name is uh Darren Taylor with Holtzman Vogle, 119 South Road. We need to either adjust your mic because it's difficult in hearing.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh Darren Taylor, 119 South Monroe Street representing the applicant with Holtzman Vogle. I have Joel Russo with me also with Next Tower. We're happy to try to answer any questions you might have. I'll be very brief as far as the comments. the staff
did an excellent job of explaining the consistency of the application with your special um use criteria. I just uh want to point out both for the board and for the the citizens, you know, what uh what what really drives this is as he
mentioned the propagation reports showing the fact that there is a significant need for improvement of cell phone service in this particular area. And so uh once you are starting to uh provide uh for that need, you're really
looking at a limited area and uh at that point uh as your requirements uh uh require that we look at the availability of towers and there's not a tower within about four miles to this particular
area. And so from there uh with your requirements if you're beginning to site you need to make sure that the tower is sufficient to provide not only for T-Mobile but for other carriers as well. And so this tower would meet the ability
to have four uh carriers on on the tower if approved. And uh so when we are looking at the sites you know we don't immediately just zero in on one site. you know, we're looking at an area. We uh send out mailers. We try to find out whether
property owners are, you know, willing to have a cell tower. And then at that point, we also have to look and see whether those uh sites actually meet the ability to have a cell tower. And so once we get to this point, there's been an evaluation. You're looking at sites.
Not every site will work. And so uh so with this site obviously we've identified that it it does meet the criteria. Staff is saying it meets it. Uh what we do know is that as you do begin to drill down on the individual uh
site planning, there are significant wetlands on the property and it limits where you can have a cell tower um on the property. And one of the comments we certainly we see some of the citizen comments related to where the tower is located. It's a 42 acre site. Why can't
you place the the tower further away from the roadway? I certainly we understand those comments. Uh the reality is is that the wetlands that are on the property. Uh they're wetlands that uh you know when not all wetlands are the same. Some wetlands are small,
some wetlands don't have connections. Some wetlands have connections and you have an outstanding Florida water body close by uh such as the St. John's River. And so the the ability to impact wetlands in that area, the ability to move a cell tower further away would be
difficult if not um impossible. So those are significant impediments as far as in trying to move a cell tower uh on that particular site. In addition to that, uh Putnham County places a uh a huge emphasis on minimizing impacts to
wetlands. And so we've provided you an application where we have remained out of wetlands completely and we're providing the required 25- foot wetland buffer. You in addition to that, Putnham County places an emphasis on trying to make sure that you avoid existing
residential structures. And in this particular application, the uh proposed cell tower is 912 ft away from the closest uh residential home. So with with that in mind, we've provided an application that meets your requirements, an application where we've
remained completely out of the wetlands. It's in the uh developable upland portion of the site and it is uh about like I said about 900 ft away from the uh closest residential structure and there is a need for the facility which
is why it is that that we are here. I have Joel Russo with me to try to answer any questions you might have. We do ask uh for the opportunity to provide some rebuttal testimony uh based upon comments that are provided and uh board members, thank you for the opportunity to be here.
>> Okay. Any any questions? >> I just have one question. Um the vegetation is sort of high within this the tree in the tree um canopy. I'm assuming it's going to be in the shorter vegetation area. Um certainly during the
I don't want to I mean from a special permit standpoint certainly from the site planning standpoint and at the DRC stage you require buffering and and everything is >> going to make sure I don't want to you know overpromise anything obviously the issue of buffering and meeting your
requirements you know will be paramount. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions? >> Madam Chair, staff, can you pull back up the uh report that was provided by the client on the wetlands that they had um indicated?
So my question is is is that outline of potential wetlands, was that done just through survey? Was that a wetland delineation? Um do you have a wetland impact study showing that that is exactly the crisis you're facing in regards to wetland outlay? I I do know
that Terracon did the evaluation. I have Joel Russo uh with me. I believe that was a delineation, but uh I will defer to uh Joel on that specific question. Make sure we give you accurate answer. >> For the record, please state your name and address.
>> Joel Russo, uh Gainesville, Florida, 1920 Northwest County Road 235. >> Okay, we're going to need to talk up. >> Okay, sorry. Um Joel Russo, 1920 Northwest County Road 235, Newbury, Florida. Um we did initially we had survey visit the site.
We had the site initially further west on the property. Uh in the first evaluation from Teraccon because it's kind of deceiving to the normal person that it's a classified wetland. Um so we did have the site moved move originally more west. uh that would obviously that
would generate Army Corps engineers and a whole kick and boodle of uh additional approvals if sought. Um the last one we did through any type of wetland impacts through inter through um Putinham County took us over a over a year just to get a
response out of out of the Army Corp engineers which is why we opted to move the site east outside the wetlands abuing the the wetland line but it was delineated. We did a full phase one and we did a full nepa report on the site as well. And those can be submitted as part of
the record. They're just massive files. Uh typically they're not requested upfront. Does >> that answer your question? >> That answers my question. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions from staff? I mean from board. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Chairman.
>> Okay. At this time, we will uh open it up as far as public comments, but I will ask is there anyone in the audience wishing to come forward and speak in favor of this application? Okay. Okay. Would you come forward, please? Did you fill out a speaker card?
>> Oh, okay. You can do it in a minute then. All right. For the for the uh record, please state your name and address. >> Uh my name is Dana Gribble. I live at 107 Brim Street in Palatka. Actually, it's called the Harbors. It's an old neighborhood and we all have problems
with our cell phones. we cannot get signals. My neighbor across the street has one corner of her property where she can get a signal and that's when it's not raining. So, yes, I'm 100% in favor of this cell tower as well as many of my
neighbors. >> Okay. Well, you can only speak for yourself. >> That's right. >> Any any questions? >> Anything else? >> Nope. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Anyone else wishing to come forward and speak in favor? Uh before we uh look at
speaker cards, I want to make it uh on the record. We did receive six um by email letters of opposition and those we're not going to read every one of them, but those are part of the record. So if you want to go in and view those
six letters of opposition, you you can do that. So at this time, we will go with the speaker cards that I have. And all of these are in what I can see opposition. So Jonathan Jones, would you like to
come forward? Oh, uh, since there's so many people wishing to speak today, we do try to limit each person to three minutes. So, um, be succinct in what you have to say. Mr. Jones,
>> for the record, please state your name and address. Jonathan Jones, 102 Bridgeport Road, Palaka, Florida. Um, in most of those maps that you showed, >> please speak speak in the mic because it's hard for people in the audience to to hear what we're saying.
>> Uh, in most of those maps you showed, my house was one of the few that you could see from it. Um, I'm here to uh uh I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. I don't normally do this. I came straight from work. Uh the proposal involves a 256 ft
communications tower in what is currently an agricultural and residential area. A structure of this size raises concerns about compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, visibility, and overall character. I heard the comments about uh there's tree cover on one side and they're going to put up uh vegetation on
the other. This is going to be way higher than the tree cover even. So I I have very few trees between me and where this site is uh proposed. I'll be able to see it from my front yard, my backyard, all my front windows, see it from my pool. Um,
while I understand the uh uh uh sorry, because of the flat terrain in our area, this tower will likely be highly visible uh from all my property and my neighbors property, all that stuff. Um at a minimum I believe this decision uh like
this should be carefully considered the impact and existing residential and character of the community. Uh it is agricultural. We don't we can't really see anything industrial out there. It's it's very nice to be out there in nature. I'm not worried about sell
service whatsoever. Uh I respectfully ask the board to consider whether this location is the most appropriate and least impactful option for this type of structure. And I don't understand if this project can't meet basic protections in this code, then it may
not be appropriate for this location. That's what I got. >> Okay, great. Any questions for Mr. Jones? >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> The next speaker will be Caitlyn Kathleen Kelch.
>> Hi everybody. Um, please state your name for the record and address. >> My name is Kathleen Kelch and I live at 493 West River Road. Um, I would like to be anywhere else than here today, but I
feel our family is being threatened and I had to come to protect my family and property. I first fell in love with Putham County when we moved to West River Road 43 years ago in 1983.
I am a trustee of the Good Tree Land Trust, which my husband and I initiated about a year ago to buy the 212 acres across the street from where the Selt Town tower site is. It is seven parcels
under one deed and it is zoned residential one. This is the report that we're addressing today, all 138 pages of it. The first thing we would like to do is
respectfully ask for some more time to analyze the report. Next Tower and its lawyers have probably been working on this for several months. We have no way of knowing.
The first time we heard of this its existence was on April 1st, 14 days ago when we received a certified letter from the county announcing there was a
zoning board of adjustment meeting and they were going to be addressing a special use permit and a zoning variance that somehow affected our property. Say what?
I don't know how many times I had to read the notice before I realized we needed to take action. Imagine if you all got this letter in the mail and you were
informed that a multi-million dollar company wanted to build a 265 ft cell phone tower 298.5 ft from your residentially zoned
property. What were we supposed to do? A friend said we needed to call an attorney. After a phone call, some emails, and a face-to-face meeting,
we were basically told it was a done deal. The board, sorry. The board, we were told, was just made up of everyday citizens like we were that took the advice from the zoning
staff and passed what they were given. We dropped that idea that someone else was going to save the situation for us and we needed
to come in person. We have had very little interaction with the county department even after 40 years of living here. But we worked with the zoning staff a couple of years ago
making a zoning change on one piece of property. I found the staff to be professional and polite and reasonable, but I wasn't trying to hurt anyone. I was just trying to make sense of a
convoluted problem. Staff asked me through the process. I'm sorry. They walked me through the process and it was a good experience all around. So, we had to take action. We downloaded the staff report.
>> Mrs. Kelch, do you need to wrap it up? Okay. Please, ma'am. >> Yeah, I I don't have much more. >> Okay. um the property. I'm sorry, this is going to take time, but we downloaded the staff report and tried to figure out
how it was possible that on a 40 plus acre property, the county was saying there was only one small spot the tower could be built and it was 216 feet from West River Road. So, we are not anti-ell tower.
Everybody wants good cell tower. They everybody wants good reception, but we are anti- having our property devalued for any amount. We are not zoning experts or urban planners. We don't come before you as
anything more than property owners who feel threatened. We did the best we could and found several what we believe to be misrepresentations in this report, mistakes, honest or otherwise.
No way to know. Maybe some deception. Maybe some bamboozling. I just like >> Mrs. Kell. Please. >> Okay. >> All right. >> But some of this just doesn't make sense. It took days for us to do this
report. I'm going to skip some of this. >> Please do because I'm going to call time on you. I'm sorry, but we've got a lot of people who want to speak today. >> I can I just ask this one question? I have a note here. >> Okay. It says that in in the 300 I think it is where the
building is open. >> Speak to the into the mic please ma'am. >> It says that you need a recording of the proceedings if you're going to have an appeal. And so I asked at the counter that day um do we have to bring recording
equipment? Uh somebody need a a camera of some sort and they said no. that all all the proceedings are are videoed. I just want to make sure that that's the case that we don't know.
So that's a question for everybody. Is >> Would you like to address that question, sir? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um the the meeting is currently being livereamed on YouTube right now. It'll be found on the Putnham County Bocc YouTube channel.
Also, uh our clerk here has a recording software that is running and capturing the uh the the verbal transactions that are occurring. >> Um um thank you much everybody. Um I did want to say the the last thing that I
could not get to say was we're not anti- cell tower. They need a cell tower out there, but it needs to be in the proper place. And if we can get more time, maybe they could make some kind of adjustment that we could >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a statement. I appreciate Miss Kelch coming to speak um using her words. I do want to state to the public that we are a board of citizens and she said we were giving a task from the staff to simply just pass
things. We also do deny instances of this case. I can't tell you what will happen today, but we're not here just to let things come in the door and write back to y'all. >> Thank you. The next speaker is Harold. Is it Marshall?
>> Ma, it's very difficult. M A R C Hel >> Marco. >> Marco. Oh, okay. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Harold Marco. I live at 216
St. John's Drive, which is in direct line at the river from that tower. Picture you just posted earlier with the red arrows. We're at the shortest arrow going to the river. It's my front yard. And many of these people here,
>> address us, please. Address us. The mic. >> Address us. Do not address the audience. So, talk to us. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So, all I'm saying today is that
according to the picture I just saw, were the closest to it in our home and the other arrows went longer, but the one to our house happens to be shorter because it ends at the river and all these good people here. That's my
main point. The thing is at a safe distance, I wouldn't care. But I feel I'm in a very dangerous spot and all the wildlife between that spot and our house. We have bald eagles. We have wild
turkeys. We have horses. We have cows. It's and all the beautiful residents that live along the river and in these surrounding neighborhoods. So, all I'm saying is please give this a hard look
at how close we are on St. John's Drive in our homes to that tower. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Uh Sandra Smith. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Before the next speaker comes available, and this is just simply for record
purposes, are you able to control the timer? Just so we are aware of >> West. >> Oh, Mr. West is. Okay. Normally it's illuminated. Is it currently out? >> We tried to get it to set and I we couldn't get it to come on. So Mr. West >> and and and I'm just saying so people don't feel disparaged or that we're
giving them more or less time than others. Normally it's illuminated. So >> I'm trying to hold it to three minutes, but Mr. West has his timer and his his cell phone. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and board members. Uh my name is Sandra Smith. I live at 130 Kelly
Smith Ranch Road, Florida. Uh it's it's a plaque address, but it's I live right off of West River Road, uh where the proposed cell tower is located. I I oppose this request to reduce the setback by 500 ft. This is not a minor
adjustment. This is a dramatic reduction that places a cell tower just 295 feet from homes in a residential area. As you've already heard, um there have been many market uh studies in real estate experience has shown that tow
cell towers do reduce the property value. Uh I know they said it would just minor uhly diminish the value. We don't know that for sure. I think that was just an assumption. Press the property across the road is riverfront property.
So I don't know. Um uh and also buyers frequently avoid properties near visible towers and that not only impacts the individual homeowners but also broader um tax base. The visual impact alone the line of of
sight visibility you've already heard from people flashing lights at night. The FAA or whoever regulates that they're definitely going to have to put uh lights on that tower. They're not going to the next tech, whatever it was called anyways, won't have to put any
on. Um, it's the FAA that will require it. So, approving a reduction of this magnitude also sets a concerning precedent. It opens the door for future encroachments into residential zones,
gradually eroding the protections homers try to rely on. So I would kind of like to know what are they were talked about the alternative sites but across the river it's only a mile across Federal Point Road is uh listed in their stated um coverage objective there's a lot of a
um over there there's already cell towers over there um I would like to hear their comment not right now but on their time and have they considered co-losations on existing towers so on their stated objective they did mention Federal Point it has fewer homes Like I
was saying, it's agg it. You could have a cell tower over there and there's always towers there. Go join them. Um, additionally, within the stated coverage objective, a specific restaurant reference was made to Florida Medical Educational. Was that facility
contacted to confirm a service service need? Because that's the whole thing. They're saying there's not enough service or is it assumption being used to fairly justify this location? Did they get this off Google Maps? Is there someone here to answer that? >> We will answer those questions at the
end. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. >> The the agent usually takes down questions that he will address at the end >> as a rebuttal. >> Thank you. If the board does um consider approval, I respectfully request at a
minimum that the tower be required to use a stealth or a mono pine. I'm sure you've seen that in larger um towns. they have they make it look like a pine tree to reduce the visual impact and it does not affect their um signals or anything. Uh but I respectfully ask that
the zoning board members deny this request which is most uh which that this appears to be a matter of convenience in a way and not necessity uses property that has a lot of marsh land on it. Um, but I feel like approving this request would send a clear message that
establishes setbacks meant to protect homeowners can be reduced by hundreds of feet and that sets a precedent and once that line is crossed, it becomes much harder to defend in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you, Mr. Zack.
come up here because we I couldn't we couldn't get this timer on. So, it's not >> Carrie, can you come check it too, please? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, because it says start. is not
started. >> Do they see the uh the minutes just right there? But there's nothing that the speaker can see on this side. >> Okay. It's just right there. Okay. >> It does give an audible tone when there's a certain amount of time left. Is correct. Is that >> Yes. So for the speakers coming forward,
it does give an audible tone when you're out of time. >> I'm sorry, >> Madam Chair, for the record, for future speakers, if they hear there is an audible tone, >> right? There is a beep. >> So they're aware of that. That's all. >> I think too there is a timer right up here. If you want to go ahead and hit
start real quick, please >> hit the start button. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yep. There's a timer right here that comes up. >> Clear. Okay, we got it. Thank you. >> All right. The next speaker is Kimberly
Rimes. >> Don't touch it. >> For the record, please uh state your name and address. >> Um I'm Kimberly Guthrie Rimes and I reside at 780 Wester Road, 782 and 786
West River Road. I am. Good evening. I am here to represent a family legacy of 70 years on this land. I'm here to request the denial of both the SUP260003 and the V260002. Under Florida law, the burden of proof
is 100% on the applicant to prove they meet every criterion of the code and I feel that they have failed to do so. Um the staff analysis admits this area is primarily single family residents and a green belt exempt. An industrial
utility is fundamentally inca incompatible with residential green belt. Also my family has documented turkeys, deer, and other wildlife on this 70-year property. These animals rely on the quiet lowintensity nature of this green belt. Introducing a 26-story
in industrial structure with a 24-hour FAA strobe lighting is a direct threat to our to the ecological character of our neighborhood. The applicant has provided no environmental study to prove that this tower won't displace the wildlife that defines our area. This project is incompatible with our land.
We aren't just talking about nature. We are talking about the existing use of this land. The code protects the unique environmental qualities of the area and the the photos I pro I provided some photos for you guys. Furthermore, the applicant has provided no competent substantial evidence regarding property
values. The staff report explicitly states that only a certified appraiser could provide this opinion. Yet no such expert report exists in the record. Without it, this board cannot legally find the tower won't have a detrimental impact.
As far as regarding the variance, I I'm speaking on that as well. The applicant seeks to reduce the a mandatory 70 foot 750 foot setback by 60% down to 298 pointt. They claim wetlands are the hardship, but on this 43 acre parcel,
the math simply doesn't work. My research of county GIS map shows that if the applicant moves the tower to satisfy the setback for the neighbor to the east, the wetlands force them into a position that violates the setback for my residents. This isn't a unique hardship. It is a fundamental site
failure. A variance is for minor relief, not to fix a property physically too constrained for a project of this scale. You cannot bypass the safety law because the developer chose a lot where the math fails. If the 750 foot safer safety buffer won't fit, the tower shouldn't
sit. The applicant notes the adjacent lot is vacant, but the law protects the land's future value. A family building there tomorrow deserves the same 750 foot protection as everyone else. Granting this established a dangerous past practice. You are signaling that
Putinham's safety codes are negotiable for corporate convenience. This undermines our zoning integrity, a code only enforced when it's easy for developer is not a code at all. The 750 foot rule protects families and our residential character. the applicant
hasn't proven hardship, provided an appraisal, or proven compatibility. I ask you to uphold the Putnham County Code and deny both the special use permit and the variance. Thank you. >> Thank you. You got to reset. Okay,
>> Pat Breedlove. >> My name is Pat Breedlove. I live at 495 West River Road. All I can say is ditto to everything they've said. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Uh, is it Aaron Smith? All right. Good afternoon. My name is
Aaron Smith. I live at 119 Kelly Smith Ranch Road and it's Palaca, but I am right down the street on West River Road from this proposed resoning site. So, I am here to notify the board that a full assessment of the health and safety for
the public use of this special the health and safety assessment for this special use permit has not fully been assessed. In addition to the concern about a cell phone tower falling is the risk of EMF. I will also challenge that the zone of
impact of this potential cell phone tower needs to be increased to 500 meters. Therefore, this property is inappropriate for a cell phone tower. In my hands, I have over 35 studies in particular to cell phone towers and their impact on public health.
Uh five of these studies dictate about the the location of the cell phone tower. One study in particular is from February of 2020, published by JM Pierce, and it states that there was ample evidence back six years ago that
if cell phone companies would like to to limit their liability of their impact on the public, they need to separate their cell phone towers by more than 500 meters. This is 1,640 ft, also a third of a mile.
The so I have also in these studies the adverse health effects that are linked to EMF exposures from cell phone towers are sleep disturbances depression increased suicide difficulty concentrating headaches memory issues
thyroid issues cardiac issues suppressed immune system increased per permeability of the bloodb brain barrier DNA damage decreased fertility and not double but four times the increase in cancer all cancer ers, specifically breast and lung
cancer. I have copies of the 2025 T-Mobile and Crown Castle 10Ks. In these 10Ks, they admit that they are in current litigate uh legal proceedings for the liability with the relationship of their EMF
devices and on public health. They also admit that as more data becomes available and as current guidelines get adjusted that not only do they expect this to continue but to increase in the future. They also admit that they do not
have the appropriate insurance. What is not said is that these cell phone towers are not insurable. Insurance companies view the EMF pollution in the air as equivalent to asbestos. So,
what we have here is in the agenda, we have a documented house that is 912 ft from the proposed site of the cell phone tower. And so, a yes vote to this special use permit is is setting up these families
and any families within that 500 meter radius for increased health issues. I have copies of my references here if you'd like me to submit them. And thank you. >> Thank you. We got
>> up. We're going up. All right. Douglas man. Thank you for this opportunity to address. >> Please state your name and address for the record. >> I was getting to that. Uh my name's Douglas Man. I live at 120 Cedar Creek
Road. Um I'm 70 years old. I've been a 30-year resident of the county. Uh or I'm sorry. Yeah, 30 years. Student at Florida State in the 1970s. Florida was the 22nd most populous state in the
union. Now we're number three. Our state is being destroyed by developers. Okay. There was mention of need. There was mention of uh of impact. All kinds of things. I agree with everything. These are your constituent. >> Turn around and speak to us.
>> These are your constituents, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Not these people that are from Gainesville or Monroe Street somewhere else. They are not your constituents. These are your constituents and they don't want this stuff. They don't want the overdevelopment and neither do I.
Okay. So, as far as need goes, this is my cell phone, T-Mobile, from my location at Cedar Creek Road. I never have a problem getting a signal. Okay? So, anyone that is having a problem getting a signal, there's such a thing as a landline,
everybody that has their life circling around these things. It's it's ridiculous. I've never seen anything like it. We need to stop the overdevelopment. We need to push back on the stuff shirts that keep coming and building and leaving the helicopters. Everything else. We're tired of it.
That's all I got to say. Have a nice day. >> Thank you, sir. >> Wyatt Kelch. Uh Wyatt Kelch, 493 West Road. Um, I'm going to do my best to uh get through this in three minutes. Um, I'll do the first half of the presentation that I u
handed out to y'all and do the second half during the variance part. Um, so I'd like to start right here with this uh diagram depicting the uh true height perspective. Um, and then compare it to the photo simulation provided by Next Tower where they're clearly utilizing
deceptive foreground perspective to make the tower appear smaller than the tree. And then move on to the next page. Here we have another photo simulation uh where they took a picture of a thicket of woods pointing towards the ground. Um so I don't know if that was in there for
comical relief. There was a couple of them like that. Uh but uh I don't think they're very good representations of the actual cell phone tower, but I did think they were good photographic representations of the misleading
information that I found in the report. Um, so flip to the next page. Here you have uh the location of the tower. Um, the east side of the base is only 179 ft from the road um with the center of the tower just 298 ft from the Eastford
residentially zoned property um which my family owns. So start with the misleading statements um or information provided on page one of seven of the special use permit planning division staff report. Uh the
future land use is falsely indicated to be agricultural for both the east and west side. The future uh uh land use is actually rural residential for both the east and west side. And then moving on, when you go to the variance reduction uh part of the uh
staff report, uh conveniently the west parcels are now indicated to be zoned residential. And according to the county records, these parcels are zoned aggly. I checked that this morning. Um, so it appears the neighboring properties to the east and west were presented as
agriculture for current and future zoning in order to be granted the special use application as the subject property is too small to meet minimum setback requirements for future land use. And then neighboring western properties were then presented to be having current residential zoning in the variance application as justification to
push the tower location easterly. So, looking at the special use permit uh criteria language uh right there in section B says it will conform to all applicable regulations of this code and zoning district. As it's laid out, it
will not. Uh staff analysis says the use will be required to conform to all applicable regulations of the LDC and the zoning district, which is not happening. Uh, and it says the special use will not adversely impact or unduly restrict the enjoyment of permitted uses
in the surrounding area. That's an opinion up to debate there. Um, furthermore, the staff analysis says it is approximately 298 ft from the nearest residentially zoned property, but that property has a green belt exemption, which means it is used for commercial agriculture operations. And I say
regardless of green belt exemption, the property is zoned residential for both current and future land uses and is allotted 750 foot uh setback. Moving on, >> you're you need to wrap it up. Your time is up.
>> Uh all right. Well, uh, I'll end this part by just saying, um, in relation to substantially diminished or impaired property values, several land owners within the community received an offer letter from Next Tower to build the telecommunications tower in exchange for
$10,000 a year. But despite the incentive, land owners within the area rejected the offer due to the detrimental effects it would cause to their own property in addition to the harmful effects it would have on their neighbors. Um it's no coincidence that the land owner to sign the deal lives outside the county and is not a member
of the impacted uh community. On the next page I have your current and future land use uh zoning maps uh which show that in the future both sides are going to be residentially zoned. And on the
next map I show that there is no area of the subject property that meets the minimum setback requirements based on the future land use zoning. Um so I'll end it there and I'll come back for the varian section. >> Thank you sir. >> We can we can refrain from the the
audience. Okay. Thank you. All right. This is the last speaker card for uh special use 26-00003. So the next case uh up for um discussion will be
I'm sorry. Hello. I'm getting ahead of myself. Okay. Anything else we need to talk about from the standpoint? Any other comments from the board? >> Questions? >> No. I'm sorry.
Um, you want a rebuttal? >> We're going to have Mr. Um the ne the next hell gentleman I mean the the applicant for next net tower come up. I'm getting ahead of myself today. >> Thank you Mr. Chairwoman. be happy to
try to provide some answers to the questions for the residents that uh that were that were asked and uh first of all want to mention the fact that under uh federal rules um local
governments aren't are to limit decisions based upon land use matters not based upon health related issues EMF or any of those things that's clearly established in uh case law so you know the focus is on the requirements that are established in the land development
code as far as on the issue of sighting towers. uh on the on the issue of um trying to identify a tower say on the other side of the river. Certainly um the reason
that doesn't work is because just as the testimony had mentioned there are towers over there and the towers aren't uh close enough you know and the closest tower is three close to four miles away. So the issue of a tower on the other side of the river being able to meet the
demand for this area, it it doesn't work. Uh we have looked at multiple parcels and uh and so this is this is the property that um certainly that's before you that does work as far as um the ability to have the tower on the
site. The um on the question of compatibility, a lot of issues were related. Certainly your comprehensive plan in Florida statutes requires compatibility and the way that your land development code addresses compatibility is through the requirements of buffering which takes
place in the development and the DRC in the application. We are going to meet absolutely your buffering requirements to ensure compatibility. The um on the question of um we we mentioned about the issue of um
the ability to adjust on the site. It's related directly to the idea of the wetland delineation. If we we cannot move it further without impacting wetlands on the site which and based upon the issues of the the connection of the wetland system towards St. John's,
we would have a fairly high um impediment in order to do that. U a lot of the testimony you that that that received um questions related certainly understand gentleman living on St. John's Drive the distance of those
homes are further than we provided you the closest residential house which is the 912 ft any other um homes are beyond that distance of the 912 ft. On the issue of property values, um staff had provided the confident
substantial evidence. That's a that's a study that they provided uh demonstrating minimal impact as far as on property values. The question of property values, cell towers, the issue of 750 ft. From a planning perspective,
from a best management practices standpoint, 750 is not some kind of rule of thumb. cell towers are much closer than 750. Every local government in the state of Florida has a different standard. So the the fact of 750 I can testify that is probably the highest
standard I've ever heard of as far as 750 ft from a distance. So the idea of it being some sort of a standard that's absolute. This board in fact has approved on uh prior occasions variances to that standard. So the issue of
protection and setback every site is identified you know individually as far as on that issue and um the question was about an industrial use. I believe this is a community facility under the code as far as and on
the issue of um impact to adjacent residential as I mentioned a cell tower and the ability to build a residential home. you can still build homes. The property adjacent to us is 211 acres and so the ability to build over time if
they choose in the future to remove uh the land trust and those kinds of things certainly this doesn't produ uh prevent the ability to build residential on that property which is the uh land use and zoning as they mentioned. So, we have provided the competent substantial
evidence that are necessary to support your um staff has provided a um competent substantial evidence demonstrating the fact that we meet the requirements for the special use permit. And Mr. Russo and I am happy to answer
any questions you might have. >> Any questions? >> Madam Chair, I have a question. um the current site that you've chosen, what factors can you kind of um release to us as to what went into choosing that particular location on the property,
such as um uh setbacks off the road based on, you know, utility easements, you know, if you were to set it farther back, obviously your increase of cost on electrical to get it there because it does take electricity to run it. Can you kind of go into that as to why you chose
that spot, you know, as opposed to um in the uh in the northwest corner where you're outside of the wetlands in a much larger field area. So, could you go into that for us if you don't mind? >> I I'm going to defer to Joel Russo specifically on that issue. Certainly,
we've identified the fact of why it is on this on this property as far as with the wetlands, which which s significantly limits where you can put a cell tower because we can't go further west and if you go further north considering that your code really in in
the uh provision of a cell tower, the the two main issues I think that what your code's identifying is trying to build in suitable areas outside of the wetlands and also trying to minimize uh location next to residential structures.
And so uh if we can't move it further west on the property and if you're moving it further north, we're moving it closer to the closest residential structure. But I'll I'll defer to Mr. Russo. >> Okay, for the record, please state your name again.
>> Joel Russo next hour. >> Okay. I don't know about the people in the audience, but >> I feel like I'm screaming at you. I don't want to scream at you. You're not screaming. I promise you >> Joel Russo next hour. Um Darren mentioned it pretty well. So in just
kind of preliminary standpoints on this one, we've contacted multiple people in the area. When it when we get an issued, we're a build suit for T-Mobile and when we're issued a search ring for T-Mobile in an area of need, uh the first thing we do is basic 101
uh planning on properties and we reach out to many many uh property owners. In this case, I think we reached out to around 12 property owners in the vicinity. Obviously, it takes there's there's a number of things that have to happen for a site to come to fruition. There's got to be an agreement. There's
got to be a val a value on it. Does it meet tower economics for us? Does it meet tower economics for the property owner? Uh, and all the environmental sensitive areas uh that come with property setbacks and and wetlands and
things like that. Um in in this case uh we did keep the tower south on the property to try to maximize the separation from any residential structures. That's first and foremost. We again I mentioned before we
originally anticipated moving further back into the property before we knew we had wetland concerns uh which move the tower out front. But we have been through this rendition a couple times with environmental uh and survey. So, I'd be happy to provide any back data on
additional property owners. Uh, but you know, obviously we have to have somebody that's willing to work with us on our property as well. So, >> hope that answers your question somewhat. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Now, at this time, we are ready to close this portion to the public and open it up for board discussion and motion. Madam Chair, can I still ask your question for uh Mr. Baker? Sure.
>> Zach, on a um uh on a lease, because this is considered a lease, does that uh infrastructure get attached to the property in regards to tax base value? Do we assess that? >> Yes, sir. the tax assessor would collect
taxes from the property owner. Whether there's an agreement between the the occupant next tower and the land owner to pay the taxes that I can't answer. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Okay. And ready for a motion. >> Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move we deny special case SUP26-0000003 as request does not meet the criteria in regards to concern for um potential impacts to the area that are beyond uh what we would deem as a board to be a
negative impact to the community. I authorize the chair to sign the final order and again um move to deny special case sup26- 0000003. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and second to
deny special use permit 26-00003. Any further discussion? All of those in favor of denial, please indicate by raising your right hand. One, two, three, four.
One, two, three, four. Okay. Um, all opposed. One, two, three, four. Okay. Right now we have a tie vote. So, uh, we need to come up with a decision and we need to readress this again and see if we can
break the tie. Madam Chair, I believe Mr. Perry is looking into what we do when it's a tie at this time. >> Actually, I spoke to the uh our chairperson uh earlier before our
meeting um because it's something that that is in our code and I'll go ahead and read it to you. It's under section 45-908 board procedures subsection F.
Um each decision of a board must be approved by a majority of the by a majority vote of the members present at a meeting in which a quorum is in attendance and voting. A tie vote is
considered a denial of the motion. After an initial tie vote, the chair will attempt to get the membership to move on the requested action by either approving or denying the matter. If a subsequent
motion is made and the votes result in another tie and there is no other motion forthcoming or pending, the chair may declare the tie vote a denial of the requested action. So you were you were correct in your
course of action. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I guess we need another motion and second. >> Mr. Perry, I have a question. Would it be out of order for a person who's already made a motion to make
another motion of the same type that was previously stated? You know, I don't really know, Hunter. Um, that's a that's Robert's rules of that's not a legal question. That's a Robert's rules of ev. >> Mr. Baker, do you have any input whatsoever, sir? Have you ever
encountered this? I believe if someone has made a motion and that motion failed, I believe you could make another motion um and and see if you might have some discussion from the board members to to sway that uh
that motion and your your vote. >> Yeah, Hunter, I tend to agree with the director as to you can go ahead and do it. >> Understood. Understood. Madam Chair, I'd like to make another motion, please. I move we deny special
case number SU26-0000003 as a request does not meet the criteria for special use permit due to the excessive negative impacts that we as a board feel it may have on the area. I authorize the chair to find sign I authorize the chair to sign the final order.
>> Second. All right. We have a motion in the second to deny special use permit 26-0000003. Any further discussion? >> Yes, ma'am. I'd like to discuss my motion, please. >> Okay. Uh my motion um to deny is based
on the um what I feel as a noncon nonconforming use for the area regards to it doesn't fit West River Road. Um especially this close to the road. You've got a neighbor to the south who could potentially at
one time have a residential structure extremely close to that property line as long as they met all the necessary setbacks. um if we could see that tower more centrally located on that property. Um potentially the applicant could get some um wetland delineation done where
they could get approval from D and Army Corps. Then we should see it back in front of us. But with these particular criterias in front of us, I cannot um approve it this close to the road and to the uh southern southern parts.
>> I have a question. If this motion if to deny is passed, does the applicant have a restriction from the standpoint of when he can reapply? >> Yes, ma'am. So, if the special use permit in it in and of itself is denied,
uh they would have to wait at least one year to deny for the same application on the same property. Um if they moved properties, they could apply next week. Um, I will also say, and I'm just putting this out there, uh, Hunter, it
sounds like you don't necessarily have an issue with the tower being on the site. You have the issue with the location of the tower. It would be my suggestion to the board as a whole that we reconsider whether we want to entitle the site for the tower or whether we
want to allow it to be located in its proposed location. because what it sounds like is that it could be approved on the site but the variance request may be denied. >> Understood. Did you understand that,
Madam Chair? >> Okay. Um, I'd like to ask for the applicant to come back up if that's okay from the standpoint of if it's denied then they can't apply for that site for another
year, but they can apply for a different site. Is that correct? >> The if the board denies truthfully, they could appeal to the circuit court of Putham County. >> Correct. Okay. And in that point, the circuit court could overturn this board's decision to deny the special use
permit. >> Okay. Does the applicant have any uh suggestion or would like to I mean this is not normally their our procedure, but um if you're going to use this particular site, can you change where
the tower is going to be located? Um, Madam Chairperson, clear clearly the uh testimony or the uh deliberation is really appears to be related to the location of the tower close to the roadway as opposed to this the use
itself which is what staff was mentioning because really the special use is related to the entire site and the variance issue is related to the proximity to the roadway and I think a lot of uh what Mr. Wkelman was
mentioning was uh in uh in your questions was related to uh whether uh the tower could be moved further to the west and impact the wetlands and uh clearly we'd have to work with staff and
really the core or the water management district depending upon the jurisdiction in order to do so. So the the um really the the options available there was already the denial but uh on the
question of the final decision certainly is if the special use permit was approved then at that point it would give uh us the ability to try to work as far as with the site planning to see if the tower could be moved somewhere else on the site.
>> Okay, >> I appreciate that response. That answered my question. Okay. All right. At this time, I will ask for a vote. So, we have a motion and a second to deny special use permit
26-0000003. Okay, we're going to call for a vote. All of those in favor to deny, please indicate by raising your right hand. Okay. All of those opposed in denial, please raise your right hand. Okay. Special use permit passes. U vote
of 8 Z. >> Madam Chair, the motion the >> to deny was you vote yes. >> Correct. >> Voting motion to approve. >> Yeah, we need a motion to approve it now. >> We needed a motion to approve it. Correct. You're right. Madam Chair, I
move we approve special case SUP 260000003 as request meets the criteria for special use permit required by section 121203 of the Putnham County Land Development Code with the six conditions
recommended by staff and authorize the chairman to sign the final order. >> Second. All right, we have a motion and second to approve special use permit 26-0000003. All in favor, please indicate by raising
your right hand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Motion carries. 8 Z. Um, and there is a 30-day appeal process. So, if there's any issues, uh, the company needs to work closely with staff on any issues. Okay.
Thank you. All right. Our next case is variance 26-00002. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Ethan Thompson, uh, presenting V26-0000 02.
This is a variance to allow for a setback reduction from 750 ft to 298T and 6 in. A total of 451 ft and 6 in uh on 42.99 acres of agriculture zone property uh for a 265 foot tall
communication tower. The applicants are requesting a setback reduction to the nearest residential property line. Uh the relevant portion here is that the principal setback for cell towers which must be a minimum of 750 ft from the nearest residentially zoned property property line
specifically and 750 ft from the nearest residents when the when the tower is located in the a zoning district unless otherwise approved by the zoning board of adjustment. Uh notably this setback reduction is for properties that have residential zoning not from residential structures. Uh the nearest residence is
approximately 912 ft to the north which is well beyond the required 750 ft. Uh we can reward this. It is a site plan not a delineation. Uh the applicants have provided a site plan which indicate jurisdictional wetlands which would
prevent access further west into the property. Uh the land development code stipulates that wetland impacts should be avoided where possible. Approval of this variance would allow the applicant to avoid impacting the wetlands. Oh, it has transitions. All right. This
is an aerial. This is the zoning map. This is the future land use map, the flood zone map, and the county GIS wetland map. Uh the criteria special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to peculiar to the land structure or
building involved or the proposed development design utilizes innovative planning. Uh the special condition here is in the jurisdictional wetlands located on the property. Uh if the cell tower were developed any farther to this uh west in the southwest area, it would it would have satisfied both the
requirements for separation between the tower uh and residential structures and between the tower and residential property lines. Uh however, as previously stated, the land development code discourages wetland impacts. uh special condition is not uh did not
result as a failure of the applicant's part to follow uh applicable county, state or federal land use regulations or building codes. Um the property owner purchased this property well after our uh our wetlands wetland impact established wetland
impact regulations were put in place. Um and avoiding areas of jurisdictional wetlands is compliant with local and state regulations which will which obviously encourage development outside of the wetlands whenever possible. By locating this project outside of the wetlands, the applicant is attempting attempting to follow state and federal
guidelines. The land development code allows for variances to reduce setback requirements for communication towers. Therefore, staff believes no special privilege is being conferred to the applicant. Um and then there are some more special conditions for cell towers specifically
that there would be no danger to the health and safety of the property owners or the general public. Uh staff rely on applicant submitted engineered plans to ensure new developments are structurally sound. Uh the applicant has provided a project narrative in which they commit to building the cell tower to all
applicable regulations. Um, worth mentioning, the tower will also be reviewed by the DRC. Uh, and any permit applications after DRC will be reviewed by the building department at the permitting stage. The site plan also depicts a 50-ft fall zone, which does conform to
county standards. Um, the other big one for this case, there's no feasible alternative to the proposal that would allow the distance requirements to be met. It does not appear that the tower can be placed anywhere else on the property due to the location of jurisdictional wetlands. Moving the tower will either require the
applicant to impact those wetlands, which again discouraged by the land development code, or move closer to a residence um worth noting that you can get variances for that 750 foot uh requirement from a residential lot line. I believe the land development code
prohibits breaching 750 ft to a residence. Uh I might be off on that but that is my interpretation of it. The variant sought is the minimum necessary to address the need for variance. Uh the variant sought is likely the minimum necessary based on
the previous criterion. The tower cannot be moved anywhere else without encroaching into wetlands or approaching residential structures. The location of the proposed communication tower in relation to uh existing structures, trees, other visual buffers will minimize to the greatest
extent uh impacts on the affected residential zoned property. Uh the proposed location is a vacant property with frontage on West River Road. The residentially zoned property is across the street. The subject property appears to have some vegetation which currently screens the property
from the south and the west. Um the applicant has also and at the time of submittal it looked like there might have been some minor vegetative buffering on the road. There were some trees in some images I saw those appear to have been removed
since the since then. Uh however the applicant has also included a vegetative buffer on the site plan. It's likely that t that the tower will be visible from the road due to its height, but the applicant is making efforts to minimize impacts on that residentially zoned parcel. Uh again,
buffering and landscape requirements are subject to further review by the development review committee. Location of the cell tower will not have a significant detrimental impact on property values uh or any property
formally designated by the comprehensive plan as protected or envir environmentally sensitive. Uh the proposed location should not impact environmentally sensitive lands. As previously mentioned, they are seeking the applicant is seeking this variance to avoid impacts on the jurisdictional wetlands.
uh and the proposed communications tower is not anticipated to have any significant detrimental impacts on adjacent property values. However, only a certified appraiser can appro can provide an expert opinion addressing property values. Literal literal interpretation of the
provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Uh cell towers are not commonly enjoyed rights by other properties in the same zoning district. They do require a special use permit from the zoning board of adjustment and approval from DRC. Uh however, it is
still an allowed use in the agricultural zoning district and denial of the variance could potentially place a hardship on the applicant because it could force them to install the tower inside of the uh jurisdictional wetlands. Granting of the variance will be in harmony of the general intent and
purpose of the land development code. The proposed tower will be located approximately 912 ft from the nearest residential structure. Uh the applicant has also proposed a vegetative buffer around the base of the tower to reduce visual impact which will be further reviewed and regulated by DRC at time of
review. Uh as such staff finds that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the land development code as the code is to protect homes that are already developed from tower failure. Uh in addition, the certified drop radius of 50 ft should be sufficient to prevent
debris from leaving the parcel in the event of a tower collapse. Is the variance the minimum necessary? Staff finds that the proposed variance is likely the minimum minimum necessary to reduce the potential impact on those wetlands and in the special flood hazard area.
staff finds that the requested variance meets the criteria required for issuance of a variance in LDC section 45833 and 45-172I2. As such, as such, staff gives a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow for a
reduction in the setbacks from 750 ft to 298 ft and 6 in, which is a total of 4 51 ft and 6 in on a 42.99 acre parcel uh zoned agriculture for a 265 foot tall
communication tower. The variance is to run with the land in perpetuity subject to the following conditions. one that there there shall be no such there shall be no deviations from or exceptions to the screening buffery and land buffering and landscaping requirements of the land development code and the proposed
communication tower shall be shall be subject to DRC review to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. Are there any questions? >> Any questions? >> Okay, thank you. U Mr. Ferry, since these two cases are related, I did not
ask for a exparte communication or conflict of interest, would they carry over or should I go and ask for the separate case? >> Ma'am, I think it'll probably just carry over. However, um I don't think that we had a conflict of interest in and
exparte communication inquiry directed to uh Mr. uh Rayburn. Okay. >> I think maybe we can do that, but other than that, I think it'll just carry on over. >> Carry on. Okay. I just wanted to make sure make make sure for the record. Okay. Um
before we go on, let's do a we already did a site visit roll call, but I'm going to ask for it again. >> Michael Rburn. >> Mark Fischer. >> No. >> Ron West, >> yes. >> Linda Osborne, >> yes. >> Willie McGee, >> yes. >> Hunter Wkelman,
>> yes. Dan Dodge. >> Yes. >> Troy Weaver. >> Yes. >> Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? >> Good afternoon board members. Darren Taylor, 119 South Monroe Street representing Next Tower. Um, and you
planning in Florida is never easy and uh, but I thank you for the time and your commitment to Putnham County and uh, certainly in understanding that trying to balance uh, the issues related to trying to meet cell tower needs and also ensuring compatibility with the
neighborhood. We we understand that. Um on the questions uh certainly uh now focusing in on this site and the issue of a variance on the on the property. Um I was I was talking with staff trying to make sure that uh you know when we are
talking about the questions of wetlands and the uh policies that you have in your comprehensive plan whether we would be on its face inconsistent with the comprehensive plan with uh moving a tower further uh west. And my understanding is that no, there is the
the ability that if the permitting agencies would allow for uh a movement that that would uh allow that the comprehensive plan would defer to uh the permitting agencies as far as mitigation. So we would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
in order if the tower was moved. So the question of course is related to the permitting and uh army corps engineer permitting is um extremely difficult and uh so on the on the issue of timing uh
we certainly understand that that is an avenue uh if this variance is denied and uh but at the same time even if it is moved further west it does not remove the fact that a variance may still be
necessary because of moving the property um moving the tower 750 ft to the west could be very difficult and uh and so the question is how far can you move it west away from the road and are we still looking at a a request for variance even
if we do so um I I don't know we would have to go into the permitting process and see what we what we could be able to do but it certainly it would be delay u could be a year and the ability to even have um any sort of improvement as far as on the the need as far as out there.
So we we are trying uh uh to work within the constraints of the property which is why it is where it is. We do know that um the attempt to mitigate uh we don't know if we would be successful but we understand if that's uh the situation
with the special use permit then that's a path we would have to attempt. Um but what we have tried to do is meet your code and uh we do understand that uh in the approach that we have taken we have
met the standard of rem of being outside of the wetlands protecting the environmental features. We understand that we have also protect as far as the existing residential structures. We do know that the one issue that we are dealing with we certainly we understand
with uh with the property to the east but the the fact of having um undeveloped land that's residential with cell towers. This is not the first time this board has has dealt with that issue. This is something where uh it
does commonly come up I understand with the sighting of cell towers at the 750 foot distance and in no way does that remove the ability of the property to be able to build residential in the future. And so with that I have Mr. Russo with
me as as we mentioned before happy to try to answer any questions you might have. >> Do you have any questions concerning me? Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, are we as far as the board is concerned the the setbacks um are they
going to be different? Are we going to change them or is it that a recommendation from us or how is the developer going to handle this since Mr. Wkelman had a big concern? >> So, just real quick, um just a simple
reminder that we still have to take public comment uh on this case. Um if the if the board decides to deny the request for the variance, then the applicants would be essentially they'd be required to abide by the stipulations
of land development code section 45-172. Um and then in terms of the placement standards, I believe that falls into subsection F um three is where you get your setback requirements.
So at that point uh because it is a zoning uh they would have to be at least 750 foot from the nearest residence and then 750 foot from the nearest residentially zoned property. They have residentially zoned property on the east
and west side. So they'd have to be 750 ft from those boundary lines. Of course the east side there's a right of way so they get an extra 60 foot or so. Um the home that's located north, which has been stated as around 912 ft, based off
of the codes allowance, they could move the tower approximately 200 foot to the north and still meet that 750 foot requirement. In terms of moving it to the west, it just depends on uh whether or not they
can go through the appropriate mitigation permitting through whichever jurisdiction will have authority on that. Okay. Do you have a question? >> Yeah. So, just to recap to it was the question was based on is that come from us. You're saying we simply
approve or deny it. We're not going to put any stipulations on the variance. Is that correct? >> Um yes. Uh essentially that is correct. You can impose additional conditions. So say you do want to approve the variance
reduction, you could place additional uh conditions like an increased buffer or whatever the board's desire may be. If you deny it, then you just deny it. There is no conditions. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Anyone in the audience right now wishing to come forward and speak in favor of this application? Okay, we have several no one's coming forward. So, we have several speakers who want to speak again in opposition. So, I will call you one at a time.
Jonathan Jones, I guess he's left. Vicky Eckles. Vicky Eckles, 405 West River Road. I only learned about this yesterday and I would second much of what you've heard today and I think you should deny the
the variance. Uh cell towers by their very nature are not attractive. I understand the communities further out that want better service and I think it's be the was said most eloquently by the woman over here uh that the the
property seems problematic. They picked a place where they couldn't adhere to the uh requirements that Putinham County settled on some time ago. It's irrelevant that we have stronger distance requirements than other communities.
So, it's the pro the property is problematic and either work through those issues and meet the codes that we have to protect residents uh versus you bending over to help them. They build cell towers. Has anyone ever heard of
fiber optics? Maybe as a comm rural community, we should be pressing that issue, but I realize that's beyond your other than your you probably were all report um appointed by commissioners. So speak to our commissioners about having fewer cell towers and more fiber optics.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Kathleen Kelch. My name is Kathleen Keltz and I live at 493 West River Road. Um, I'm just going to pick up where I left off and uh uh
we're we are not zoning experts or urban planners. We don't come before you as anything more than property owners who feel threatened. We did the best we could and found several what we believe to be misrepresentations, mistakes. honest or not, I guess that's
perfectly allowable with these planning uh to um and uh it took days to just decipher the report. It's complex and confusing
subject to non-professionals. That's us. Um it took days to get a handle on what was entailed. Some of it is technical. Some of it relies on expertise we don't have. But to us, it needed a healthy dose of common sense. My son uh was a
researcher in the engineering department for five years at UF while obtaining his PhD in geotechnical engineering. He wasn't an attorney. He didn't know the law. He wasn't familiar with the language,
but he could analyze what was presented. He tried to figure out how this tower came to be 298.5 ft from our residential property. They tried to say it was agriculture because we have a green belt. That does not take
away the fact that we've got residential property. That's what we bought. I came to zoning when we bought it and I said they've had trees on this from the people we bought it and they they cut them down. So, we wanted to know if we could do the same. and they said yes. Uh
it doesn't affect your zoning. It's the highest and best. Keep your residential zoning. And uh we did and we hope the zoning board of adjustment rejects the proposal as it stands today. Um really
if they can find another spot on that property then whatever the cell phone company has to do um if they have to make a longer driveway or they have to do some more permitting or whatever they need to do
then they should do that. Um because this variance it's supposed to be 750 feet and they're taking away 450 of the feet. So
for us this is an existential threat. I thank you guys. >> Thank you. Kimberly Rimes. >> Hi, I'm Kimberly Rimes. I live at 780 West River Road, but I also represent my family, which is 782 and 786. Um, I am
the resident that everyone keeps talking about that's 900 ft. Um, I'm going to go along with what Miss Kelch said. I mean, you guys should not go back on what your codes are, which is
the 750 foot. That should not change. And doing that is a dangerous past practice. I'll say again, um it just it it it shouldn't happen. Um I'm going to go ahead and also say this is just not a
it's just not a the right place. You guys, I'm a little disappointed that you passed the other the other case because it's not. He keeps mentioning it's compatible. It is not. If you knew the land, I I I ask of you drive out to West
River Road. Go out there, see what's around. It is not compatible. I have to agree with Mr. Wkelman. This is just this is just not a fit for West River Road and for that area. Um, I also want to reiterate again that there is no
competent substantial evidence uh regarding property values. Um, I just don't know how you legally can approve this because there there's nothing no reports that show that it won't have a detrimental impact without that evidence.
Um, that's pretty much it. I ask you to deny this based on what the residents have told you they want. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Bridget Michaels.
>> Hi, my name is Bridget Michaels. I live at 487 West River Road. I um have lived o in Putnham County for now over 40 years. Been a member of the community, realtor, educator. Um as a realtor, I sold many homes off
of West River Road, some of them right there at Bridgeport area. Um there's been repeated reference to a need for a certified appraiser to assess whether or not there is low uh any uh impact on u
residential values in the area when they put in cell towers. Uh the National Association of Realators has uh peer-reviewed studies that report that cell phone towers can reduce property values by as much as 20%. These are
studies as other people have suggested about health that can be easily looked up. They do exist and um I think they should be considered in allowing for especially something like this as a variance. Uh St. John's County had a um
hearing for a smaller tower that under a variance uh just a week ago on 4726. Um they uh the board voted 50-0 to deny the request. The board chair Clay Murphy made the motion to side with the
neighbors. Um I hope that this committee representing Putnham County community and the residents of the area that this cell phone tower will affect will also um do the same, deny this variance and support the community.
uh you mentioned here um when you started this meeting about undue and unnecessary hardship. I think this is what we're pretty much looking at especially under the variance um request. Thank you.
>> Thank you >> sir. >> I'm gonna Okay, we still have some people >> I I understand completely. Uh, I just want to go ahead and say we would like to request a denial of I mean of >> a withdrawal of Speak. I'm having I
don't want to request a denial. I want to request a withdrawal of our variance um application, please. >> Okay. >> And that will go ahead and save some times. I know uh for for this board and the residents, we uh we thank you uh for the direction as far as on the special use permit. We have work to do as far as
on the site and we wanted to make sure we uh continue to use the time of the public and this board. So, >> okay. All right. Make sure that we haven't followed procedures here. The applicant has actually withdrawn his
relication for the U variance which is um let me get the numbers here. Variance 26-0000002. Okay. Since there is a request to withdraw, what is the procedure next?
>> Move on to the next item on the agenda, ma'am. >> Okay. So, it is uh we will hear this at a later date. I guess then >> we don't know. They withdrew their application. It could >> be that could be the end of it. >> It's the end of it. Okay. Madam chair for uh for public's knowledge that and
for us what's the um if they wish is the withdrawal considered a complete removal of the application can they reapply at a future date? How does that work? >> That's >> Yep. So this application uh for the variance today is essentially um kaput. There's there's no action to take on it.
Um yes the the applicants could uh get more site information. They could explore different options for the placement of the tower. Uh but to directly answer your question, Mr. Wkelman, yes, they could submit an application in the next week or two with
a new request of reduction. >> Okay. >> As it stands right now, the board approved the special use permit. So 45-172 um prevails in terms of regulating the placement of that tower at this time.
>> Okay. All right. I guess we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Um, old business. Anybody have any old business? New business. The next thing is the approval of March the minutes for March 18, 2026. Is
everybody had a chance to read them? >> Move they be approved as read. >> Madame Chair, if I may? >> I'm sorry. >> May I May I make a comment on the minutes, please? >> Sure. Um I just wanted to capture that uh last month during the zoning board of
adjustment meeting we also handled the appointment of chair and vice chair. Um that was not provided for in the minutes. And then uh it's just a small mistake and I feel pompous every time I say it but uh the position for myself is listed in the minutes as the senior
divisional planning manager rather than the executive director of development services. >> Okay. So those corrections will be added to the minutes for today then. All right. With that in mind, um we have a motion and a
>> move they be approved as amended. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as amended for March 18th, 2026. We have further discussion. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. All oppose. Motion carries 8. Okay. Okay. If nothing else, we will stand a journ.