Extracted text (via pymupdf)
43877 characters
April 22, 2026
SU250037
Page 1 of 3
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
April 22, 2026
Case #/Title:
SU250037 – US-A-5292 (PHO) 355thAve
Supervisorial District:
4
Applicant/Owner:
Robin Walters, State 48 Consulting / Keith Wiseman
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication facility
(WCF) in the Rural-43 zoning district
Site Location:
Generally located approx. 200’ south and approx. 400’ west of the
SWC of Roeser Road and Salome Highway in the Tonopah area
Site Size:
Approx. 2,500 sq. ft. of an approx. 40-acre parcel
County Island Status:
N/A
Additional
Comments:
•
The proposal is a 109’ monopole designed to accommodate colocation of three antenna arrays.
•
The SUP is required because the WCF will not meet a minimum 2:1 setback from all lot lines –
215’ from the north lot line and 210’ from the east lot line where at least 218’ is required. Also, the
proposed maximum antenna array diameter is 16’ where the ordinance limits to an 8’ maximum.
•
There are no outstanding concerns from reviewing agencies. There is no known opposition.
Commission
Recommendation:
On 3/19/26, the Commission voted 6-0 (motion by Commissioner
Milhaven D2, seconded by Commissioner Toma D4) to adopt a
motion recommending the Board of Supervisors approve
SU250037 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’:
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan entitled
“Verizon: PHO_355th_AVE / Vertical Bridge: VB US-AZ-5292,” consisting of 8 full-size
sheets, dated February 25, 2026, and stamped received February 27, 2025, except as
modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in
substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to
the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
April 22, 2026
SU250037
Page 2 of 3
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled “Project Narrative”, consisting of 6 pages, stamped received January 12, 2026,
except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards;
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual;
and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
2.
Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes to
the site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the site’s
drainage infrastructure.
3.
Maricopa County does not supply water, fire or sewer services. It is the
applicant/owner’s responsibility to coordinate and secure water, fire and sewer
services for this site.
4.
Any encroachment into the existing special flood hazard areas will require a flood
use permit. Applicant is expected to maintain historical flow patterns.
d.
The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 109’.
e.
A Minor Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the Wireless
Communication Facility.
f.
This special use permit is valid for a period of 30 years and shall expire on April 22, 2056,
or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days, whichever occurs first. All
site improvements associated with the special use permit shall be removed within 90 days
of such expiration or termination of use.
g.
The following SUP standards shall apply:
1.
Max. WCF Height: 109’
2.
Min. Setback from North Lot Line: 215’
3.
Min. Setback from East Lot Line: 210’
4.
Max. Tower Diameter: 3’
5.
Max. WCF Antenna Array Diameter: 16’
6.
Screening: Min. 6’ Chain-Link Fence
h.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this Special Use
Permit by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds for revocation in
accordance with the requirements and procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
April 22, 2026
SU250037
Page 3 of 3
i.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant,
with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to
enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application,
subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the
time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property may be considered for revocation
to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed
that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, or the expiration of
the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application
to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value
of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or
expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value of the
property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted and reverting to
the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Special Use Permit had
never been granted.
Presented by:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachment:
3/19/26 P&Z Packet (31 pages)
Note:
3/19/26 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report but can be
provided upon request later, or accessed via Agenda Center, when available.
SU250037
Page 1 of 10
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
SU250037 – US-A-5292 (PHO) 355thAve
Hearing Date:
March 19, 2026
Supervisor District:
4
Applicant:
Robin Walters, State 48 Consulting
Owner:
Keith Wiseman
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication facility (WCF) in
the Rural-43 zoning district
Site Location:
Generally located approx. 200’ south and approx. 400’ west of the SWC of
Roeser Road and Salome Highway in the Tonopah area
Site Size:
Approximately 2,500 sq. ft.
Density:
N/A
County Island:
No
County Plan:
Tonopah / Arlington Area Plan – Rural Densities (0 – 1 d.u. / ac)
Municipal Plan:
N/A
Municipal Comments:
None Received to Date
Support/Opposition:
None known
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
SU250037
Page 2 of 10
Project Summary:
1.
The applicant, Robin Walters of State 48 Consulting, is requesting an SUP for a proposed WCF on
Parcel 506-42-012A. The subject parcel, zoned Rural-43, comprises approximately 40 acres and
is located along the south side of Roeser Road (an easement along a mid-section line), about ¼
mile west of the southwest corner of 355th Avenue and Salome Highway in the Tonopah area. The
SUP will be a 2,500-square-foot lease area toward the northeast corner of the parcel.
2.
The applicant’s client is proposing to provide access to the lease area by recording a 25’-wide
access and utility easement. Access to the site comes from Lower River Road by way of an
ingress/egress easement that extends from the road and parallels the west lot line. The easement
would terminate along the north half of the east-facing fence screening the lease area. A single
parking space measuring 12’ x 30’ would be provided for construction and maintenance
personnel. A 12’-wide double-swing gate would be provided along the east-facing fence.
3.
The WCF itself would be built as a conventional monopole. Vertical Bridge would build the tower,
which would allow co-location by at least three wireless carriers. The applicable development
standards for Rural-43 zoning, as well as those proposed with this request, are listed in the table
below. The tower would reach a maximum height of 109’ (inclusive of all appurtenances). The
applicant is requesting increased height on behalf of the Vertical Bridge to enable superior
coverage in what is currently a rural area. Furthermore, to accommodate the requirements of
modern telecommunications technology, the applicant is requesting to allow a maximum antenna
array diameter of up to 16’. The mast would be built to a width of 3’ at the base.
4.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the required setbacks slightly from the north and east lot
lines. The MCZO requires that a WCF be set back from adjacent parcels with Rural or Residential
zoning at least 2’ for each 1’ in height. For a 109’ tower, this would require a setback of 218’ from
all parcel lines. The proposed facility would significantly exceed this setback from the south and
west lot lines, but reduced setbacks are proposed from the north (215’) and east (210’). Staff
notes that if the required setbacks were measured from the center of the monopole, the tower
would slightly exceed the minimum north setback required and would meet the minimum east
setback required exactly. The MCZO requirement to measure setbacks from the antenna array
circumference would place the facility slightly within those required setbacks, hence the request
to modify the applicable standards.
5.
Finally, the applicant is requesting to allow a chain-link fence for site screening in lieu of a wall
required for facilities in Rural and Residential zoning districts. Per the applicant, chain-link fencing
allows visibility for routine inspections and emergency access while still providing adequate
security and restricted access. It is also consistent with industry standards and minimizes visual
mass compared to a solid wall.
REGULATION
BASE REGULATIONS
(WCF in Rural-43)
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
(WCF in Rural-43 with SUP)
Max. Height
80'
109’
Min. Setback from N. Lot Line
2’ for each 1’ in height
(218’)
215’
Min. Setback from E. Lot Line
2' for each 1’ in height
(218’)
210’
Max. Tower Diameter
2’-6”
3’-0”
Max. Antenna Array Diameter
8’
16’
Screening
Min. 6’ Solid Wall
Min. 8’ Chain-Link Fence
SU250037
Page 3 of 10
2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Parcel
2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs
SU250037
Page 4 of 10
Floodplain Map (Floodway in Red, 100-Year Flood Zone in Blue)
The WCF would be located toward the NEC of the parcel, outside the floodplain.
Excerpt from the Site Survey
SU250037
Page 5 of 10
Excerpts from the Site Plan
SU250037
Page 6 of 10
Excerpt from the Elevations
SU250037
Page 7 of 10
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant
North:
Rural-43 / Vacant
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 / Rural Residential
West:
Rural-43 / Vacant
Zoning District Map
Utilities and Services:
7.
Water:
N/A
Wastewater:
N/A
School Districts:
Saddle Mountain Unified School District
Fire:
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority (AFMA) – South County Fire District
Police:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)
Right-of-Way:
8.
The following table includes the existing and proposed half-width for the adjacent right-of-way,
as well as the future classifications for the corresponding roadway, based upon the Maricopa
County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Transportation System Plan 2040 and Road
Information Tool.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
Salome
Highway
100’
100’
Principal Arterial
SU250037
Page 8 of 10
Adopted Plan:
9.
Tonopah / Arlington Area Plan (adopted September 6, 2000): This area plan assigns the subject
site a future land use category of “Rural,” which denotes areas where single family residential
development is desirable but urban services (sewer, water, law enforcement, fire protection,
schools, parks, etc.) are limited. The proposed WCF would not conflict with this land use
designation, nor with the land use strategies, goals, or policies outlined in the area plan.
Public Participation Summary:
10.
The applicant complied with the requirements of the citizen review process by posting the site
and sending notification by first class mail to interested parties and adjacent property owners
within 300’ of the site. Two signs were posted onsite in accordance with applicable regulations.
To date, staff has not received any citizen comment regarding this case.
11.
The Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management (MCDEM) and the Arizona Fire &
Medical Authority (AFMA) have both confirmed they have no objection to the application. AFMA
Chief Robert Olmstead did note in his comments that the property is not currently annexed into
the South County Fire & Medical District (which itself is partnered with AFMA). The property would
be required to annex into the District for the AFMA to act as the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
12.
N/A.
Staff Analysis:
13.
Staff interprets the requested development standards as reasonable. The increased height and
antenna array diameter would not significantly affect the facility’s impact on surrounding
properties. Staff concurs with the applicant’s explanation that these modified standards would
be necessary to maximize the reach and quality of cellular service and accommodate modern
communications equipment effectively. The reduced setbacks would have no impact on
neighboring properties, most of which are either vacant or feature rural residences that are set
well back from shared lot lines. On that note, the tower would meet or exceed the required 2:1
setback-to-height ratio if the MCZO required setbacks to be measured from the center of the
monopole. With the requirement to measure setbacks from the antenna array circumference, the
facility would only encroach 3’ into the required north setback and 8’ into the required east
setback. Still far exceeding a 1:1 setback-to-height ratio, the reduced setbacks would impose no
risk on adjacent properties. Staff also believes that the relaxed screening requirements are
reasonable and would not create an undesirable aesthetic impact on the few neighboring parcels
which would be set well back from the lease area.
14.
Staff supports the applicant’s request for an SUP. The proposed WCF promises to provide
wireless service in a rural but growing area. Demand for such service is growing in kind but is
currently limited. The WCF would provide enhanced wireless service not only for existing and
future residents in the area, but for first responders as well.
Recommendation:
15.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve SU250037 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’:
SU250037
Page 9 of 10
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan entitled
“Verizon: PHO_355th_AVE / Vertical Bridge: VB US-AZ-5292,” consisting of 8 full-size
sheets, dated February 25, 2026, and stamped received February 27, 2025, except as
modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in
substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to
the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled “Project Narrative”, consisting of 6 pages, stamped received January 12, 2026,
except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards;
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual;
and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
2.
Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes to
the site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the site’s
drainage infrastructure.
3.
Maricopa County does not supply water, fire or sewer services. It is the
applicant/owner’s responsibility to coordinate and secure water, fire and sewer
services for this site.
4.
Any encroachment into the existing special flood hazard areas will require a flood
use permit. Applicant is expected to maintain historical flow patterns.
d.
The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 109’.
e.
A Minor Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the Wireless
Communication Facility.
f.
This special use permit is valid for a period of 30 years and shall expire on April 22, 2056,
or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days, whichever occurs first. All
site improvements associated with the special use permit shall be removed within 90 days
of such expiration or termination of use.
g.
The following SUP standards shall apply:
1.
Max. WCF Height: 109’
2.
Min. Setback from North Lot Line: 215’
3.
Min. Setback from East Lot Line: 210’
SU250037
Page 10 of 10
4.
Max. Tower Diameter: 3’
5.
Max. WCF Antenna Array Diameter: 16’
6.
Screening: Min. 6’ Chain-Link Fence
h.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this Special Use
Permit by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds for revocation in
accordance with the requirements and procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
i.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant,
with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to
enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application,
subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the
time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property may be considered for revocation
to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed
that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, or the expiration of
the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application
to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value
of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or
expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value of the
property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted and reverting to
the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Special Use Permit had
never been granted.
Presented by:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Site Plan (reduced 8.5”x11”, 8 pages)
Narrative Report (6 pages)
DPR Comments (1 page)
MCDOT-Approved TIS Waiver (1 page)
AFMA Comments (2 pages)
MCDEM Comments (2 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 40 approx.
Generated February 23, 2026 10:24 AM
SU250037
Application Name:
Legal Description
US-A-5292 (PHO)355th_Ave)
Applicant
Case Address
1N 6W 25
Robin Walters
35723 W ROSSER RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:506-42-012A
(702) 721-6567
TONOPAH, AZ 85354
Map scale 1:3,270
Supervisor District No.
Vertical Bridge is proposing to install a new 110’ Self-support structure in a 50’x50’ compound on parcel
506-42-012A
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
T-1
APPLICABLE CODES
DRIVING DIRECTIONS (FROM AIRPORT)
CONTACT INFORMATION
SCOPE OF WORK
FLOOR ZONE INFORMATION
SITE INFORMATION
VERIZON: PHO_355TH_AVE
VERTICAL BRIDGE : VB US-AZ-5292
W SALOME HWY & W ROESER RD
TONOPAH, AZ 85354
MARICOPA COUNTY
ZONING DRAWINGS
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SITE
SITE
DRAWING INDEX
OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
VICINITY MAP
ENLARGED VICINITY MAP
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
SUP PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
O/H
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-1
OVERALL SITE PLAN
LEGEND
1
25'-0"
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
APN: 506-42-012A
ZONING: R-43
APN: 506-42-001Z
ZONING: R-43
APN: 506-42-061
ZONING: R-43
APN: 506-42-009C
ZONING: R-43
APN: 506-42-009Q
ZONING: R-43
Z-2
1
50'-0"
LEASE AREA FOR ACCESS/UTILITIES
50'-0"
LEASE AREA FOR ACCESS/UTILITIES
±215'-0"
±210'-6"
FEMA ZONE: X
FEMA ZONE: AE
±1094'-1" TO PROPERTY LINE
±1091'-1" TO PROPERTY LINE
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-2
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
LEGEND
1
APN: 506-42-012A
ZONING: R-43
25'-0"
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
50'-0"
FENCE COMPOUND/LEASE AREA
50'-0"
FENCE COMPOUND/LEASE AREA
25'-0"
25'-0"
Z-3
1
3'-0"
UTILITY EASEMENT
16'-0"
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-3
COMPOUND SITE PLAN
LEGEND
1
APN: 506-42-012A
ZONING: R-43
25'-0"
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
3'-0"
UTILITY EASEMENT
50'-0" FENCE COMPOUND/LEASE AREA
50'-0" FENCE COMPOUND/LEASE AREA
3'-0"
22'-11"
12'-9"
25'-0"
6'-9"
3'-6"
17'-8"
6'-6"
3'-4"
25'-0"
Z-6
1
20'-0"
10"
7'-9"
16'-0"
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-4
NORTH ELEVATION
2
1
EAST ELEVATION
FINISHED GRADE
EL. 0'-0" AGL
TOP OF POLE
EL. 105'-0" AGL
OVERALL HEIGHT
EL. 109'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 93'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 81'-0" AGL
TOP OF PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE
EL. 6'-0" AGL
FINISHED GRADE
EL. 0'-0" AGL
TOP OF POLE
EL. 105'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 105'-0" AGL
OVERALL HEIGHT
EL. 109'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 93'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 81'-0" AGL
TOP OF PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE
EL. 6'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 107'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 105'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 107'-0" AGL
3'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-5
SOUTH ELEVATION
2
1
WEST ELEVATION
FINISHED GRADE
EL. 0'-0" AGL
FINISHED GRADE
EL. 0'-0" AGL
TOP OF POLE
EL. 105'-0" AGL
OVERALL HEIGHT
EL. 109'-0" AGL
TOP OF PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE
EL. 6'-0" AGL
TOP OF POLE
EL. 105'-0" AGL
OVERALL HEIGHT
EL. 109'-0" AGL
TOP OF PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE
EL. 6'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 93'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 81'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 105'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 93'-0" AGL
FUTURE RAD CENTER
EL. 81'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 107'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 105'-0" AGL
VZW RAD CENTER
EL. 107'-0" AGL
8'-0"
3'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"
ENLARGED EQUIPMENT PLAN
2
ANTENNA CONFIGURATION @ 105'-0" & 107'-0"
1
PHO_355TH_AVE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Z-6
25'-0"
LEASE AREA
20'-0"
LEASE AREA
3'-0"
UTILITY EASEMENT
12'-0"
CONCRETE PAD
4'-6"
3'-0"
3'-6"
8'-6"
8'-0"
CONCRETE PAD
4'-0"
CONCRETE PAD
1'-5"
4'-0"
CONCRETE PAD
5'-6"
10'-6"
2'-11"
TYP.
2'-11"
TYP.
6'-6"
TYP.
4"
TYP.
4"
TYP.
3'-4"
TYP.
16'-0"
Project Narrative
Site Name: (VB US-AZ-5292) PHO_355th_Ave
S/T/R: 25/1N/6W
Address: Maricopa, AZ 85354
APN: 506-420-012A
Coordinates: 33°23'55.11"N, 112°49'16.63"W, (33.398642, -112.821285)
Jurisdiction: Maricopa County
Zoning: RU-43 (Rural Zoning District)
Description of Request: Vertical Bridge is requesting a Special Use Permit
to install a new 109’ Self-Support wireless communications facility in a
50’x50’ compound on parcel 506-42-012A located at 33°23'55.11"N 112°
49'16.63"W.
Maricopa County Case: SU250037
Submitted by:
Robin Walters
Project Manager
State 48 Development Consulting
114 W. Main St #130
Mesa, AZ 85201
Mobile: (702) 721-6567
Email: re@state48consulting.com
Requested Use(s), Business Operations, Hours/Day of Operation, and Number of
Employees/Customers:
The applicant, Robin Walters, is submitting this request on behalf of Vertical Bridge Development,
LLC to construct and operate a new multi-carrier wireless telecommunications facility. The facility
will be unmanned, with no daily customers. Maintenance will occur approximately once every one
to two months, performed by a single technician in a service vehicle during daylight hours.
Description/Location of Buildings, Screening, Wall/Fence Details, and Location:
The facility will be located on a parcel at W Salome Highway and W Roeser Road (approximate
coordinates: 33.398642, -112.821285), Maricopa County, Arizona. The property is owned by Keith
Wiseman, who has provided written authorization.
The project includes a 109' Monopole centered within a 50’ x 50’ fenced lease area to maintain
required setbacks. Associated equipment cabinets and radio units will be installed on
concrete pads adjacent to the Self Support base. The compound will be enclosed with a 8-foot-high
chain-link fence topped with barbed wire for security. This is the max. height of the fence when
measuring up to the caps. The design allows space for multiple wireless carriers.
Proposed Development Standards:
Increased Tower Height:
The proposed monopole height is required to meet established radio frequency (RF) engineering
objectives and to provide reliable wireless service coverage within the surrounding service area.
Additional Tower Height allows the antennas to clear existing terrain, vegetation and man-made
obstructions, which reduces signal shadowing and dropped connections. A lower structure would
result in coverage gaps, increased interference, and the need for additional facilities in the future.
By allowing increased height at this single location, the project minimizes the overall number of
wireless facilities needed in the area and supports orderly infrastructure development.
Number of Parking Spaces and ADA Parking Spaces:
1 dedicated parking space is proposed; the facility is unmanned and not open to the public.
Circulation On and Off the Site – Proposed Improvements or Dedications:
Access will be provided from W Roeser Road via an improved stabilized DG drive within a recorded
access easement. Circulation is limited to occasional maintenance vehicles entering and exiting the
site. No public traffic is anticipated. No roadway dedications or off-site improvements are proposed.
On-Site Paving:
The site will have minimal surfacing, consisting of stabilized DG within the fenced lease area and
service drive. No public paving is proposed.
Timeframe for Construction or Phasing of the Project:
Construction will begin following all required approvals and is expected to take approximately six
weeks. The project will be completed in a single phase.
Antenna Array Diameter:
The requested antenna array diameter is necessary to accommodate modern multi-band and
multi-sector antennas required for current and future wireless technologies, including 5G. These
antennas are larger than legacy equipment due to integrated radios and multiple frequency bands.
The array is designed to be as compact as technically feasible while still meeting performance,
separation, and safety requirements. Reducing the array diameter would compromise system
performance and limit co-location opportunities for future carriers.
Use of Chain-Link Fence Instead of a Solid Wall:
The facility is unmanned, and chain-link fencing allows visibility for routine inspections and
emergency access while still providing adequate security and restricted access. In this rural/low-
density context, chain-link fencing is consistent with industry standards and minimizes visual mass
compared to a solid wall. The proposed fencing meets security requirements while reducing
construction impacts and maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Utility Providers:
•
Water: Not required for this facility
•
Sewer: Not required for this facility
•
Police: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
•
Fire Services: Arizona Fire and Medical Authority Station 341
Irregular Site Features (Hillside, Flood Zones, Washes, Canals);
The parcel is generally flat and outside of designated hillside areas. The site is not located within a
FEMA-designated floodplain. Minimal grading will occur within the lease area, and existing
drainage patterns will be maintained.
Additional Information:
The primary objectives of the proposed facility are to improve wireless voice and data service,
increase network capacity, and enhance E911 emergency response coverage for the surrounding
area. The location was selected based on demonstrated coverage needs, minimal impact to the
remainder of the property, and compliance with Maricopa County zoning and development
standards. The parcel is zoned RU-43 (Rural Zoning District) and is surrounded by low-density
residential, small-scale commercial, and vacant rural land.
No lighting is proposed except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
WCFs within 1000’:
There are no other WCFs within 1000’.
Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
Special Use Permit Application Packet
12/2/24
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
The following is supplemental information required to be submitted and addressed in the narrative report for the Special
Use Permit.
1.
What is the height of the proposed WCF? _109'_______________
2.
Provide a map showing all the existing WCFs within a 1,000 feet radius for sites within Rural, Single-Family
Residential or Multiple-Family zoning districts (Regardless of provider). A review of the available FCC databases there are
no existing Wireless Communications Facilities within a 1,000-foot radius.
3.
Provide a list with locations and approximate height of all existing vertical structures (of a height approximately
equal or greater than the requested tower) within the WCF’s search area. This includes church spires and steeples,
light standards, water towers, transmission lines, buildings, or other similar structures. There are no existing structures
of equal or greater height in the search area.
4.
Provide a map showing the service areas which the proposed facility will serve. Provided in Narrative
5.
Explain any attempts or possibilities that have been investigated relating to co-location with another provider or
existing facility. No exiting facilities are available.
6.
Explain how this request can facilitate co-location with other users. The proposed Monopole is designed as a multi-carrier
facility.
7.
Will the request involve removal of mature trees or cacti? If so, discuss plans for relocation of such vegetation. This
will not require the removal of mature trees or protected cacti.
8.
Discuss the following compatibility issues:
a.
Setbacks from residential uses. This is a large rural parcel and setbacks are well in excess of nearby residential uses.
b.
Setbacks from all property lines. The Monopole is within the required setbacks per Maricopa County standards.
c.
Setbacks from uses/structures on adjacent property. Adequate separation is maintained from structures and
adjacent properties.
d.
Setbacks from public and private streets or access easements. The facility is setback from public roadways and
access easements with access provided via a recorded easement
e.
Future additional appurtenances or expansion plans. Future additions would be for co-located antennas and
equipment which would within the existing compound and have applicable approvals.
f.
Color and type of tower, landscaping, and fence screening. The will be neutral-colored to blend in surrounding rural
area that is enclosed with a 8-foot chain link fence with barbed wire. There is no landscaping due to the rural area of the
site.
g.
Surrounding non-residential uses (if applicable). Surrounding land uses include vacant rural land and limited small-
scale non-residential uses, which are compatible with the proposed facility.
9.
If a stealth design is not being proposed, please explain why. Is not proposed due to the rural location. A standare
Monopole represents the least visually intrusive and most functional design.
Anh Harambasic, PE
Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: (602) 506-3611
www.maricopa.gov/planning
email address:
Anh.Harambasic@maricopa.gov
Planning & Development
Engineering Plan Review
Date:
November 25, 2025
Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager, Department of Planning &
Development
Attn:
Nicolas Schlimm, Planner, Planning & Development Services
via:
Doug Jones P.E., Engineering Supervisor, Planning and Development
From:
Anh Harambasic P.E., Plans Examiner Engineer, Planning &
Development
Subject:
SU250037 Cell tower by Vertical Bridge 50’x50’ enclosure
APN(s):
506-42-012A Roeser Rd and Salome Hwy (SWC)
Description-Application request to install new 110’ self supporting structure on 50’x50’
enclosed compound.
Engineering Review has reviewed the first plan set routed for review, for the subject
application on 11.03.2025 and has no objections to the zoning case subject to the
following conditions:
The following general stipulations will apply:
GENERAL DRAINAGE REVIEW/INFORMATION
1. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and
Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway
Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices
at the time of application for construction.
2. Based on the conceptual design nature of the information submitted, changes
to the site layout may be necessitated by the final engineering design of the
site’s drainage infrastructure.
3. Maricopa County does not supply water, fire or sewer services. It is the
applicant/owner’s responsibility to coordinate and secure water, fire and
sewer services for this site.
4. Any encroachment into the existing special flood hazard areas will require a
flood use permit. Applicant is expected to maintain historical flow patterns.
Please contact me with any questions.
TIS Waiver |Wireless Communication Facility
Traffic Study Waiver Request
APN 506-42-012A
robin@state48consulting.com
SU250037
Plans Sealed By
Not Applicable
Laxmikanth Narwa, P.E./602.506.8677
Int. Review No.
Date
Item No.
Page No.
Review Comment
Code
LN
1
12/29/2025
1
General
The below comments are limited to traffic study impacts for the proposed development based
on the land use described in the Project Summary of this comment review sheet. Any additions
to the subject parcel that will meet MCDOT criteria for a Traffic Statement (TS) or Traffic
Impact Study (TIS), including any new access or modifications to the existing access points
connecting to MCDOT roadways, will require the developer to submit a TS or TIS for review and
approval by MCDOT. Refer to the latest MCDOT TIS manual for TS or TIS requirements.
LN
1
12/29/2025
2
General
As per the information provided by the applicant for the traffic study waiver request (See
attached), MCDOT anticipates no impacts on to the surrounding MCDOT roadway network as
the site average trip generation is estimated to be less than 100 trips during peak hours.
Therefore, MCDOT has no traffic concerns on proposed usage of this property.
LN
1
12/29/2025
3
General
Approval of Traffic Study Waiver for this project site does not constitute approval of R/W
limits or dedication requirements, geometric layout of Site Plan details, and any other permit
related requirements applicable for this development. It Is the responsibility of the applicant to
submit their application for permits with all other agencies that have jurisdiction surrounding
the project site.
The Traffic Study Waiver Is Approved
Consultant Comment
Discipline
Consultant
Signature
Date
The developer is seeking for traffic study waiver for the property located on Parcel APN# 506-42-012A. As per the applicant, the proposed project is for the purpose of
Planning Application SU250037 with intent to build a wireless communication facility. As per information provided by the applicant, The proposed project consists of
improvements to an unmanned wireless facility, including antenna and equipment upgrades on a monopole and associated ground equipment within a fenced lease area.
The facility will not have on-site employees and will not generate public traffic. Vehicular trips will be limited to infrequent maintenance and service visits, typically occurring
only a few times per year and involving a single service vehicle. The proposed work does not constitute a change in land use intensity and will not result in any measurable
increase in daily or peak-hour traffic volumes. Site access will be provided via existing roadways, and no new driveways or roadway improvements are proposed or required
as part of this project. The facility includes one designated parking space for maintenance vehicles. No new access points or modifications to the existing facilities
surrounding the project site are requested.
Traffic Engineering Review Comment Sheet
Project Name
Location
MCDOT File No.
Reviewer/Phone No.
Consultant: Please use the code and respond to each comment in the Consultant Reply Column. This sheet is for our records, please answer every question and sign and date your acknowledgment or the plans will be sent back
to complete the process. Send back the marked-up plans and a new set of plans along with this sheet. Thank you for your cooperation.
Consultant Code: A=Will Comply B=Deleted C=Consultant to Evaluate
General Project Summary:
Page 1 of 1
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Robert Olmstead <Rolmstead@AFMA.Az.gov>
Sent:
Monday, November 24, 2025 2:43 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Kane Nixon
Subject:
RE: [EXTERNAL:] SU250037 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Notification
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Nicholas,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Arizona Fire & Medical Authority is not opposed to this request
with the following comments;
This property is not currently annexed into the South County Fire & Medical District. The South County Fire
& Medical District is a partner in the Arizona Fire & Medical Authority. The property would be required to
annex into the South County Fire & Medical District in order for the Arizona Fire & Medical Authority to act
as the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
The South County Fire & Medical District is governed by the 2018 International Fire Code with local
amendments.
Best Regards,
Robert Olmstead
This message is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are noƟfied that the
disseminaƟon, distribuƟon or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the
named recipient(s), please noƟfy the sender either at the above e-mail address or telephone the Arizona Fire & Medical
Authority (AFMA) at (623) 544-5400. Thank You.
To ensure compliance with Arizona's open meeƟng laws, members of the North County, South County and/or Arizona Fire &
Medical Authority's Board of Directors who have received this message may reply directly to the sender but must not
correspond with or send a copy of their reply regarding this message to any other members of their respecƟve Board(s).
Recipients of this message who are not Board members must not forward this message to any of the North County, South
County or AFMA Board Members.
From: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 12:30 PM
2
To: AQD Business Assistance SM <AQBusinessAssistance@maricopa.gov>; Jeff Nelson (EMG)
<Jeffrey.Nelson@maricopa.gov>; Richard Turner (EMG) <richard.turner@maricopa.gov>; Paul Chagolla (MCSO)
<P_Chagolla@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; Philip Hilliker (MCSO) <P_Hilliker@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; gramirez@azdot.gov;
redletter@azdot.gov; Robert Olmstead <Rolmstead@AFMA.Az.gov>; Calle Hinkle <chinkle@azgfd.gov>; Teigan Williams
<tstruck@azgfd.gov>; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish <pep@azgfd.gov>; Caulkins, Jeffery A
<jeffery.caulkins@aps.com>; steven.kadatz@aps.com; Todd.Williams@aps.com; pe@azland.gov;
proetto1950@gmail.com; kcotner@azmag.gov; pburnett@azmag.gov; Michael Winters
<michael.winters@smusd90.org>; blackson.daniel@yahoo.com; keith@bugnoutpest.com; dmheisler1@aol.com;
robin@state48consulting.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL:] SU250037 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Notification
WARNING: This email originated from outside of AFMA. DO NOT respond, click links or open attachments unless you can verify this
outside sender and trust that the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
The attached document includes the TAC memo for Case SU250037. Please review the attached memo for instructions
to download application materials.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Nick Schlimm
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W. Jefferson St. #170 Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-0031
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Jeff Nelson (EMG)
Sent:
Tuesday, December 30, 2025 12:29 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Richard Turner (EMG)
Subject:
RE: SU250037 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Notification
Nick,
I have reviewed the attachments for SU250037 and have found no reason to object to this construction.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Jeff Nelson
Operations Supervisor
Emergency Management
1325 N Fiesta Blvd, Gilbert, AZ 85233
O: 602-273-1411 C: 602-619-2076
E: jeffrey.nelson@maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
From: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 12:30 PM
To: AQD Business Assistance SM <AQBusinessAssistance@maricopa.gov>; Jeff Nelson (EMG)
<Jeffrey.Nelson@maricopa.gov>; Richard Turner (EMG) <richard.turner@maricopa.gov>; Paul Chagolla (MCSO)
<P_Chagolla@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; Philip Hilliker (MCSO) <P_Hilliker@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; gramirez@azdot.gov;
redletter@azdot.gov; Robert Olmstead <rolmstead@afma.az.gov>; Calle Hinkle <chinkle@azgfd.gov>; Teigan Williams
<tstruck@azgfd.gov>; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish <pep@azgfd.gov>; Caulkins, Jeffery A
<jeffery.caulkins@aps.com>; steven.kadatz@aps.com; Todd.Williams@aps.com; pe@azland.gov;
proetto1950@gmail.com; kcotner@azmag.gov; pburnett@azmag.gov; Michael Winters
<michael.winters@smusd90.org>; blackson.daniel@yahoo.com; keith@bugnoutpest.com; dmheisler1@aol.com;
robin@state48consulting.com
Subject: SU250037 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Notification
Good afternoon,
The attached document includes the TAC memo for Case SU250037. Please review the attached memo for instructions
to download application materials.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
2
Nick Schlimm
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W. Jefferson St. #170 Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-0031
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube