Title:
title
Kentucky Street Special Exception - Request for a Special Exception for a proposed 143-foot communication tower and four (4) variances to the required separation distance from properties with existing single family use, located on the north side of Kentucky Street, approximately 1,700 feet east of Skyway Drive; Z2025-15 (Mary Doty Solik, Applicant) District 5 - Herr (Annie Sillaway, Principal Planner).
end
Agenda Category:
Public Hearing Items
Department/Division:
division
Development Services
body
Authorized By:
Mike Rhodes - Development Services Director
Contact/Phone Number:
Annie Sillaway/407-665-7936
Background:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Special Exception to construct a 143-foot monopole communication tower designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. The property has a Future Land Use designation of Higher Intensity Planned Development - Airport and is zoned A-1 (Agriculture). The subject property is approximately 1.67 acres meeting the minimum required lot size and lot width of the A-1 zoning district. The Applicant proposes to place the communication tower in the northeast corner of the vacant site.
A Special Exception is required for communication towers within the A-1 zoning district. The Special Exception request shall be evaluated for compliancy with all applicable sections of the Seminole County Land Development Code (SCLDC), including but not limited to, Sec. 30.6.7.3 - Communication Antennas/Towers Performance Standards, and Sec. 30.6.7.4 - Communication Antennas/Towers Design Criteria.
Pursuant to Sec. 30.6.7.3, communication towers must maintain a minimum separation distance (from existing single family residential uses) of 200 feet or 300 percent of the height of the tower, whichever is greater, unless a variance is granted. Such variance may be approved upon findings that the proposed tower minimizes aesthetic impacts and remains compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed tower height of 143 feet requires a separation distance of 429 feet.
Four (4) variances are being requested from the required separation distance of 429 feet, measured from the outer extremity of the base of the communication tower to the property line of the parcel that has an existing single-family residential use. The tower is proposed to be located approximately 111 feet from the nearest property line of a residential use; the remaining three (3) residential parcels are located at a distance of 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the base of the proposed communication tower. The applicant has obtained consent from all affected property owners for the reduced separation distance.
Federal and State Regulatory Framework
Telecommunication towers are regulated on the federal, state and local levels. The Federal Government regulates telecommunication towers through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”). Section 704 of the Act addresses the “Preservation of Local Zoning Authority.” This Section of the Act preserves the authority of state and local governments over zoning and land use matters with some limitations. Under the Act, local governments:
1. Must act on requests to construct towers in a reasonable time;
2. May not adopt or apply policies/regulations that have the effect of discrimination among wireless service facilities providers;
3. May not adopt or apply policies/regulations that prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services;
4. May not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that its radio frequency emissions would be harmful to the environment or to the health of residents if those emissions meet Federal Communications Commission standards; and
5. Must place any denials in writing and base them upon substantial evidence in the record.
With regard to State statutory limitations on local regulation of the siting of telecommunication towers, Section 365.172(13), Florida Statutes (2024) requires the following:
1. A local government’s regulations and review for wireless communications facilities may only address land development or zoning issues.
2. A local government may not impose any setback or distance separation requirement of a tower that exceeds the minimum distance necessary to satisfy the structural safety or aesthetic concerns that are to be protected by the setback or distance separation.
3. A local government may not require information on or evaluate a wireless provider’s business decisions about its service, customer demand for its service, or quality of its service to or from a particular area or site, unless the wireless provider voluntarily offers this information to the local government.
4. A local government may not require information on or evaluate the wireless provider’s designed service unless the information is directly related to an identified land development or zoning issue or unless the wireless provider voluntarily offers the information, such as evidence that:
a. No existing structure can reasonably be used for the antenna placement instead of the construction of a new tower.
b. Residential areas cannot be served from outside the residential area.
c. The proposed height of a new tower is necessary to provide the provider’s designed service.
5. Local governments may regulate aesthetics, landscaping, land use-based location priorities, structural design, and setbacks, provided they do not conflict with the other statutory regulations.
6. A local government may exclude the placement of wireless communication facilities in a residential area or residential zoning district but only in a manner that does not constitute an actual or effective prohibition of the provider’s service in that residential area or zoning district. If a wireless provider demonstrates to the satisfaction of the local government that the provider cannot reasonably provide its service to the residential area or zone from outside the residential area or zone, the local government and provider shall cooperate to determine an appropriate location for a wireless communications facility of an appropriate design within the residential area or zone.
7. Local governments may not require wireless providers to provide evidence of a wireless communication facility’s compliance with federal regulations, except evidence of compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration requirements.
Criteria for a Special Exception
In reviewing special exception requests, SCLDC Section 30.3.1.5 (a) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission hold a public hearing to
consider the proposed special exception and submit written recommendations to approve with conditions or deny the request to the Board of County Commissioners for official action.
After review of the special exception request and a public hearing, the Board of County Commissioner may approve the request if it is determined that the use requested meets the following criteria:
(1) Is not detrimental to the character of the area or neighborhood or inconsistent with trends of development in the area:
Staff Findings
(2) The proposed 143-foot monopole communication tower would negatively impact the character of the surrounding residential area, and its encroachment is exacerbated by the minimal separation distance, as the tower would be only 111 feet from the nearest residential structure.
(3) Does not have an unduly adverse effect on existing traffic patterns, movements and volumes:
Staff Findings
The proposed tower generates de minimis levels of traffic.
(4) Is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan:
Staff Findings
According to Seminole County Comprehensive Plan FLU Exhibit 36, telecommunications facilities are an allowable use within the Target Industry Uses associated with the Higher Intensity Planned Development - Airport (HIP-AP) future land use designation.
(5) Will not adversely affect the public interest:
Staff Findings
The proposed communication tower is not anticipated to adversely affect the public interest as a whole, however it will negatively affect those residential uses that it is in close proximity to due to the proposed tower not meeting the required distance separation. While the proposed tower’s passive nature, limited activity, and minimal noise generation result in fewer potential effects on the public, it will still adversely affect the residents located closest to the tower as further discussed below.
(6) Meets any special exception criteria described in Additional Use Standards under SCLDC Sec. Sec. 30.6.7. - Communication antennas/towers.
Staff Findings
(a) Sec. 30.6.7.3 (Performance Standards for Setbacks) requires communication towers to meet the building setbacks for the existing zoning district, measured from the outer extremity of the base of the tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located.
• The proposed placement of the tower meets the required side yard and rear yard setbacks, and the subject site meets the minimum lot size as required for the A-1 zoning district.
(b) Sec. 30.6.7.3 (Performance Standards for Minimum Separation from Off-Site Uses/Designated Areas) requires communication towers to maintain a minimum separation distance from existing single family residential uses of 200 feet or 300 percent of the height of the tower, whichever is greater, unless a variance is granted. The distance shall be measured from the outer extremity of the base of the tower to the nearest property line of the residential use.
• The communication tower must maintain a separation distance of 429 feet from any property containing an existing residential use. The proposed location of the tower does not comply with the required 429-foot separation distance from four (4) adjacent residential properties. As a result, the Applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum separation requirement as part of the Special Exception application.
(c) Sec. 30.6.7.3 (Performance Standards for Minimum Separation between Communication Towers) requires communication towers to maintain a separation distance radius of 1,500 feet from other exiting towers. The separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line between the GPS coordinate of the center of the existing or permitted communication tower and the proposed GPS coordinate of the center of the proposed communication tower as depicted on a site plan of the proposed tower.
• The Applicant has provided a location plan to show that the proposed communication tower does not encroach into the distance separation based on the GPS coordinates.
(a) Meets the following Additional Use Standards If located in A-10, A-5, A- 3, or A-1:
(i) Is consistent with the general zoning category of the rural zoning classifications; and
(ii) Is not highly intensive in nature; and
(iii) Is compatible with the concept of low-density rural land use; and
(iv) Has access to an adequate level of public services such as sewer, water, police, fire, schools and related services.
Staff Findings:
The subject property and the surrounding properties are currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture); however, the Higher Intensity Planned Development - Airport (HIP-AP) future land use designation that applies to this area is not consistent with long-term agricultural zoning. As growth progresses in the surrounding area, new development will align with airport related compatible uses rather than agriculture activities.
The proposed monopole communication tower is not considered a highly intensive use; as a passive facility with no regular daily traffic, noise, or on-site activity, the communication tower represents a low intensity use consistent with the intent of this criterion.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff finds that the proposed communication tower generally satisfies the Special Exception criteria of Section 30.3.1.5. However, because approval of the special exception is contingent upon approval of the associated variances, staff cannot support approval of the special exception unless the variances are approved.
If the Commission chooses to proceed with the approval of the variance request, staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Exception to the Board of County Commissioners as per the following motion:
Based on staff findings and evidence received at the hearing, the Planning and Zoning commission finds that the proposed Special Exception is not detrimental to the character of the area and will not adversely impact the public interest with the inclusion of the following Special Exception conditions:
1. The proposed communication tower is to be designed as a monopole and will not exceed 143 feet including antennas and lighting rod.
2. Any improvements and/or additions to the proposed tower shall be submitted for approval to the County.
3. No signage or advertising shall be permitted on the proposed tower unless otherwise required by law.
4. The proposed tower shall not be artificially lit, except to ensure human safety or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which the Applicant is providing for the Orlando Sanford Airport.
5. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a Site Plan that meets all other applicable code requirements including Chapter 40 of the Land Development Code, from the Development Review Committee (DRC).
6. Any Special Exception granted shall expire one (1) year after approval unless a development permit based upon and incorporating the Special Exception is obtained within the one (1) year period. One six (6) month extension may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners. (SCLDC 30.3.6)
Criteria for Variances:
The criteria for granting a variance from the minimum separation distance is found in Sec. 30.6.7.3 (b), Table 1 of the SCLDC. A variance may be granted if it is found that the aesthetic impacts of the tower are enhanced, that compatibility with abutting property owners is maintained, and the approval of the tower location would be consistent with and further the provisions of SCLDC Sec. 30.6.7.1 <https://library.municode.com/fl/seminole_county/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=SECOLADECO_CH30ZORE_PT70SUDIRE_S30.1362LEPUIN>.
Aesthetic Impacts per Section 30.6.7.3(b), Table 1:
The Applicant proposes a 143-foot monopole communication tower with a galvanized finish and an eight (8) foot tall opaque vinyl fence surrounding the equipment compound. Staff recognizes that a monopole design is generally less visually intrusive than lattice or guyed towers and that the galvanized finish reduces the visual mass of the structure. Staff also acknowledges that the surrounding area is characterized by airport-related and utility uses, including the City of Sanford Water Treatment Plant located north of the subject property.
However, the primary visual mitigation measure established by the SCLDC is the required separation distance between communication towers and residential uses. For a tower of the proposed height, the Code requires a minimum separation distance of 429 feet from existing residential properties. The proposed tower would be located approximately 111 feet, 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the affected residential properties, resulting in reductions of approximately 74 percent, 67 percent, 28 percent, and 28 percent from the required separation distance.
While the proposed eight (8) foot tall opaque vinyl fence may effectively screen ground-mounted equipment and portions of the tower compound, it does not screen or reduce the visibility of the 143-foot monopole tower itself. Likewise, the galvanized finish and monopole design, while beneficial, do not substantially offset the visual impacts associated with locating the tower significantly closer to residential properties than contemplated by the Code.
Staff finds that the magnitude of the requested variance substantially diminishes the effectiveness of the visual buffer established by the 429-foot separation requirement. The proposed mitigation measures are not proportional to the degree of separation reduction being requested and do not adequately compensate for the increased visual prominence of the tower from nearby residential properties.
Therefore, staff finds that the aesthetic impacts of the proposed communication tower have not been sufficiently enhanced or mitigated to support approval of the requested variance.
Compatibility with Abutting Property Owners per Section 30.6.7.3(b), Table 1:
Although the affected property owners submitted letters of support, staff finds the reduced separation distance remains inconsistent with the intended level of protection established by the Code. The separation requirement was adopted to ensure compatibility between communication towers and residential uses and to further broader public welfare objectives. While property owner support is a relevant consideration, it does not eliminate the compatibility concerns associated with reducing the required separation distance by the magnitude requested.
Additional provisions of SCLDC Section 30.6.7.1(b):
(1) To accommodate the growing need for communication towers.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the proposed communication tower would provide an additional location for wireless communication infrastructure within the County and therefore is generally consistent with the intent of accommodating communication towers.
(2) To encourage and direct the location of communication towers to the most appropriate locations considering sound planning and land use practices and to ensure compatibility between communication towers and abutting land uses.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the proposed tower location is not the most appropriate location considering the intent of this criterion. The Code requires a minimum separation distance of 429 feet from existing residential uses; however, the proposed tower would be located approximately 111 feet, 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the affected residential properties. The degree of encroachment into the required separation distance substantially reduces the compatibility buffer established by the Code between communication towers and residential uses. Although the Applicant has obtained letters of support from the affected property owners, staff finds that the requested reduction does not fully satisfy the intent of promoting compatibility and appropriate tower siting.
(3) To protect residential areas and land uses from the potential adverse impacts of communication towers when placed at inappropriate locations or permitted without adequate controls and regulation.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the requested variance is inconsistent with the intent of protecting residential areas from potential adverse impacts associated with communication towers. The required 429-foot separation distance serves as a protective measure intended to reduce the impacts of communication towers on nearby residential properties. The proposed tower would be located substantially closer to residential properties than contemplated by the Code, reducing the effectiveness of this protective buffer.
(4) To minimize adverse visual impacts through sound and practical design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the proposal does not fully satisfy the intent of minimizing visual impacts. While the Applicant proposes an eight (8) foot tall opaque vinyl fence around the equipment compound, the fence provides screening only at ground level and does not mitigate views of the proposed 143-foot monopole tower. The required separation distance of 429 feet serves as the primary visual mitigation measure established by the Code. The proposed tower would be located approximately 111 feet, 141 feet, 307 feet, and 308 feet from the affected residential properties, representing reductions of approximately 74 percent, 67 percent, 28 percent, and 28 percent from the required standard. Staff finds that the proposed fencing is not proportional mitigation for the magnitude of the requested variance and does not adequately offset the increased visual prominence resulting from the reduced separation distance.
(5) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through sound engineering and planning and the prudent and careful approval of communication tower sites and structures.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the required separation distance established by the Code is intended, in part, to provide an additional buffer between communication towers and adjacent land uses. The requested variance would substantially reduce that separation distance from nearby residential properties. As a result, staff finds that the proposal does not fully further the intent of maintaining the level of separation contemplated by the Code for the protection of adjacent properties.
(6) To promote and encourage shared use of existing and new communication tower sites and towers as a primary option rather than construction of additional single-use towers.
Staff Findings:
The proposed communication tower is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers and therefore provides an opportunity for future co-location. Staff finds that the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of encouraging shared use of communication tower facilities.
(7) To evaluate current trends and projected areas of advancement relative to communication towers and the telecommunications industry.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the proposed monopole tower represents a conventional communication tower design and does not conflict with this intent. This criterion is primarily a policy directive for the ongoing evaluation of communication tower regulations.
(8) To provide the County with information pertaining to enhanced and new uses of communication towers and related systems.
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the Applicant has provided sufficient information to allow review of the proposed communication tower and associated variance request. This criterion does not directly affect the compatibility analysis associated with the requested separation distance variance.
The standard relative to variances as otherwise set forth in this Code may be considered in determining whether to approve a variance hereunder but shall not be determinative as to whether the variance may be granted.
Standard Variance Criteria per Section 30.43(3):
Pursuant to Sec 30.43 (3), SCLDC, any variance to the required separation distance between the proposed communication tower and an off-site use may be based on the following findings:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning classification:
Staff Findings:
While the proximity of surrounding residential properties limits placement options on the site, staff does not find that these circumstances are unique to the property or sufficiently distinguish it from other similarly situated properties within the same zoning classification.
2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant:
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the need for the variance results from the Applicant’s decision to locate the tower on a site that cannot accommodate the required separation distance from surrounding residential properties.
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Chapter 30 to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning classification.
Staff Findings:
Granting the requested variance will not confer a special privilege upon the Applicant that is denied to other properties within the A-1 (Agriculture) zoning district. The SCLDC allows communication towers as a permitted use when all applicable separation, design, and compatibility standards are met, and it also provides a process for requesting relief through a variance when unique site conditions warrant consideration. Other similarly zoned properties with comparable circumstances would have the same opportunity to seek a variance under the same criteria. The Applicant is not being granted an exception outside the established regulatory framework; rather, the request is being evaluated through the same variance process available to all properties within the zoning classification.
4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant.
Staff Findings:
The literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 would not deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The property still has all the allowable uses within the A-1 district. The applicant is responsible for addressing whether or not denial of this request would result in an unnecessary and undue hardship.
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
Staff Findings:
The Applicant proposes to construct the communication tower in the northeastern portion of the site to maximize the separation distance from the four surrounding residential parcels. However, due to the proximity of these residential uses, the tower will still encroach into the required 429-foot separation distance, which directly triggers the need for a variance. The Applicant has obtained letters of support from all four adjacent residents located within the encroachment area. If the requested variance is not approved, the property retains reasonable economic use through other permitted uses allowed by the Future Land Use designation and zoning classification.
6. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Findings:
The granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, because it would substantially reduce the separation distance established by the Code to promote compatibility and minimize visual impacts on residential properties. The requested variance would reduce the required separation distance by approximately 74 percent and 67 percent for the closest residential properties.
Staff finds that the proposed mitigation measures, including the monopole design and eight (8) foot opaque fence, are not proportional to the magnitude of the requested reduction. Therefore, approval of the variance would undermine the purpose of the separation requirement and would not be in harmony with Chapter 30.
Community Meeting
In compliance with Seminole County Land Development Code Sec. 30.49 - Community Meeting Procedure, the Applicant conducted a community meeting on April 8, 2026; details of the community meeting have been provided in the agenda package.
Requested Action:
Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested variance due to the required separation distance between the proposed communication tower and existing residential development. Because the Special Exception is contingent upon approval of the variance, staff cannot support the Special Exception unless the variance is granted.
Staff recommends the following motion:
Based on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the requested variances do not satisfy the applicable criteria of the Seminole County Land Development Code, as presented by staff, and recommends denial of the requested variances. Because approval of the Special Exception is contingent upon approval of the variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission further recommends denial of the Special Exception.
If the Commission chooses to proceed with the approval of the variances request, staff recommends the following motion:
Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing from the Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the request meets the identified portions of the Seminole County Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Variance and Special Exception for the communication tower located on the north side of Kentucky Street, approximately 1,700 feet east of Skyway Drive, contingent upon approval of the variance.