Extracted text (via pymupdf)
275106 characters
April 20, 2022
Z2021044
Page 1 of 4
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
April 20, 2022 (Indefinitely Continued from August 4, 2021)
Case #/Title:
Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Supervisor District:
3
Applicant/Owner:
Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services / Superior L & L LLC
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new wireless communication
facility (WCF) in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district
Site Location:
Approx. 750 ft. southeast of the SEC of 7th Ave. and Desert Hills
Dr., in the New River area
Site Size:
Approximately 1.7 acres
County Island Status:
N/A
Additional
Comments:
This case was continued from the August 4, 2021 Board
hearing. The applicant has modified the request in an
attempt to alleviate project opposition. Project modifications
include:
Proposed monopole height lowered from 80’ to 65’;
Proposed monopole appearance changed from being
painted brown to have a “Corten” brown finish;
Proposed array diameter lessened from 13’ to 9.5’; and
the proposed monopole and ground equipment will be
located within a 30 ft. x 35 ft. compound screened by 10 ft.
tall solid CMU walls.
Staff notes the development standard modification table on
sheet ZD of the site plan identifies a minimum lot size of 72,828
sq. ft. where 43,560 sq. ft. is required; however, that apparent
modification is in error and the minimum lot area is
unmodified at 43,560 sq. ft.
There is significant opposition to the project due to the
location, height, and color of the WCF, among other
concerns. The Commission recommended denial of the
request due mainly to the number and substance of
opposition comments. The Commission was not satisfied with
the Applicant’s responses to the written and in-person
opposition presented at hearing. Seven (7) parties spoke in
April 20, 2022
Z2021044
Page 2 of 4
opposition at the hearing, citing general concerns. As of the
writing of this report, staff is aware of 123 opponents to the
request (comprising 71 opposition petition signatories & 52
additional opposing parties). Four (4) opposition comments
represent 4 properties within 300 ft. of the subject property.
Staff has calculated the support and opposition received,
and notes that a Super Majority Vote (four affirmative votes)
has been triggered. The trigger is when 20% or more of
property owners within a 300’ radius of the subject site, by
number and area, register opposition to the case. The
opposition received accounts for 6 property owners
representing:
44% opposed parcel acreage within 300’ buffer
80% opposed parcel numbers within 300’ buffer
There are no outstanding concerns from reviewing agencies.
Commission
Recommendation:
On 7/8/21, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial
of Z2021044.
Staff
Recommendation:
The staff report presented to the Commission included staff
recommendation for approval. In the event the Board
motions for approval of Z2021044, staff suggests conditions
‘a’ – ‘i’ (incorporating the applicant’s modified proposal):
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the combo
Site/Building Plan Set entitled “US-AZ-5068 HONDABOW”, consisting of 9 full-size
sheets, dated October 4, 2021, and stamped received January 21, 2022, except
as modified by the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “US-AZ-5068 (HONDABOW)”, consisting of 17 pages, dated
May 18, 2021, and stamped received May 21, 2021, except as modified by the
following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage
Plans are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must
go according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage
Policies and Standards and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
April 20, 2022
Z2021044
Page 3 of 4
3.
Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle
applicants to future designs that are not in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies
and Standards.
d.
The following Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD)
condition shall apply:
1.
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced
project. Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff
report. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning
and Development Department procedures. Applicant may need to
submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the
Department. Review of any such application will be based on regulations
in force at the time of application.
e.
The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 65’.
f.
A Minor SUP Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the
Wireless Communication Facility.
g.
This special use permit is valid for a period of 20 years and shall expire on
April 20, 2042, 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.
h.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit 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 shall revert 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:
Sean Watkins, Planner
April 20, 2022
Z2021044
Page 4 of 4
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
7/8/21 P&Z Packet (99 pages)
7/8/21 P&Z Handout with opposition (6 pages)
7/8/21 P&Z Handout with opposition (4 pages)
Opposition received after P&Z (61 pages)
P&Z Appeal Form (1 page)
Revised site plan for 4/20/22 (9 pages)
Opposition received for 4/20/22 (9 pages)
Super Majority & opposition map (3 pages)
Daisy Mountain Fire & Medial response (2 pages)
7/8/21 P&Z Minutes – Z2021044 (4 pages)
Z2021044
Page 1 of 11
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Hearing Date:
July 8, 2021
Supervisor District:
3
Applicant:
Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services
Owner:
Superior L & L LLC
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new wireless communication facility in
the Rural-43 RUPD Zoning District
Site Location:
Approx. 750 ft. southeast of the SEC of 7th Ave. and Desert Hills Dr., in
the New River area
Site Size:
Approx. 1.7 acres
Density:
N/A
County Island:
No
County Plan:
Daisy Mountain / New River - Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac)
Municipal Plan:
N/A
Municipal Comments:
None received to date
Opposition:
83 Opponents (71 opposition petition signatories & 12 additional
opposing parties).
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
Z2021044
Page 2 of 11
Project Summary:
1.
The Applicant, Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services, on behalf of Vertical Bridge, T-Mobile
and the property owner, is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new Wireless
Communication Facility (WFC) in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district. The subject property is
parcel 211-23-014F, located approximately 750 ft. southeast of the southeast corner of
the intersection of 7th Avenue and Desert Hills Drive, in the New River area (subject
property). The subject lot split property is rectangular, generally flat and comprises
approximately 1.7 acres. The subject property is bounded by a Rural-43 designated
property to the west and Rural-43 RUPD properties to the north, east and south. A vacant,
Arizona State Trust Land property bounds the subject property to the north and south, a
vacant, privately-owned property bounds to the west and a privately-owned property
with apparent accessory buildings bounds to the east.
2020 Aerial Photograph of
Subject Property (Outlined in Red)
2.
The proposed 80 ft. tall WCF tower will be within a new 30 ft. x 35 ft. (1,050 sq. ft.) lease
area compound, located in the northern half of the subject property. The tower will be
painted brown to decrease its visual/aesthetic effects. The compound will include new
equipment cabinets and electrical service, and will be enclosed by a 10 ft. tall CMU wall.
The 10 ft. tall CMU wall is to minimize noise that may emanate from equipment cabinet
cooling fans (already limited because, according to the Applicant, the equipment
cabinets are designed to minimize noise) and to screen the lease area compound.
Z2021044
Page 3 of 11
3.
The Applicant provided mapping of the current level of T-Mobile wireless service in the
area of the subject property and how the proposed WCF would improve that service
with an 80 ft. tall tower as opposed to a 65 ft. tall tower. Currently, the T-Mobile wireless
level of service in the area is characterized by full-strength signal for calls made outdoors,
with slightly less signal strength in cars, but inside residences most calls would be blocked
or dropped due to weak signal that cannot reliably penetrate buildings. This level of
service is shown by the yellow area, which extends approximately 1.5 miles to the west,
north and east, and approximately 1 mile south, of the subject property where signal
strength increases in areas shown in light blue. Signal strength is non-existent in the areas
shown in white, with increasing strength shown by brown, yellow, light blue and dark
green area, where the signal is strongest. According to the Applicant, signal strength is
improved with the 65 ft. tall tower; however, the coverage does not extend to other
T-Mobile 5G towers, which is significant because the 5G system depends on strong signals
between the towers to achieve optimal levels of service.
Existing Signal Strength
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Z2021044
Page 4 of 11
Signal Strength with 65 ft. Tall Tower
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Signal Strength with 80 ft. Tall Tower
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Z2021044
Page 5 of 11
4.
The applicant has requested several development standard modifications in
accordance with the SUP process, as follows (MCZO Sec. 304 and Art. 1202.2.8). The 80 ft.
tall tower complies with the 80 ft. height limitation for WCFs in Rural and Residential zones;
however, it does not meet the 2 ft. of setback per 1 ft. in height requirement
(MCZO Arts. 1202.3.1.1.a and 1202.3.1.1.g). Accordingly, a development standard
modification is requested to provide for the proposed 80 ft. setback from the west and
north subject property boundaries and 140 ft. setback from the east subject property
boundary, where 160 ft. setbacks are required (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g). The proposed
antenna array is 13 ft. in diameter where the maximum diameter is 8 ft.
(MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.h). Accordingly, a development standard modification is
requested to provide for the 13 ft. antenna array. A final development standard
modification is requested to eliminate the 25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) that would
typically be required for a WCF where the driveway meets the public street
(MCZO Art. 1111.4.3).
Excerpt of Proposed Site Plan
Z2021044
Page 6 of 11
5.
According to the Assessor, the subject lot split property is 1 of 3 parcels created from 2
parent parcels, completed on January 13, 2021. According to Planning and
Development records, the subject property is in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district
established under zone change with overlay request Z2005023, approved by the Board
of Supervisors on January 4, 2006. The intent of Z2005023 was to provide for Cielo Grande,
a subdivision planned for the area for which a Preliminary Plat (S2005012) and two
subsequent Preliminary Plat time extensions (S206067 and S2007057) were approved, but
no Final Plat was ever approved and the Cielo Grande subdivision was never built. Even
so, the development standards approved under Z2005023 apply to the current, subject
property as well as the Rural-43 RUPD designated properties to the north, east and south.
The differences between the development standards implemented under Z2005023
Rural-43 RUPD and the current Rural-43 development standards are 1) 20 ft. interior side
yard setback where 30 ft. is the current standard, 2) 30 ft. rear yard setback where 40 ft.
is the current standard, 3) minimum 120 ft. lot width where 145 ft. is the current minimum,
and 4) minimum 35,000 sq. ft. lot area where 43,560 sq. ft. is the current minimum
(Z2005023 and MCZO Sec. 503). At approximately 220 ft. in width and 72,828 sq. ft., the
subject property exceeds the lot width and area requirements of the Rural-43 RUPD zone.
The other development standards of the Rural-43 RUPD zone do not affect the current
WCF proposal differently from the current Rural-43 zone standards.
Zoning Map
(Subject Property Outlined in Red)
Z2021044
Page 7 of 11
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Rural-43 RUPD / Residential
North:
Rural-43 RUPD / Vacant
South:
Rural-43 RUPD / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 RUPD / Residential
West:
Rural-43 / Vacant
Utilities and Services:
7.
Water:
N/A for proposed WCF
Wastewater:
N/A for proposed WCF
School District:
Deer Valley Unified School District #97
Fire:
Daisy Mountain Fire District
Police:
MCSO
Right-of-Way:
8.
The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
Major Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
Desert Hills Dr.
40-ft
65-ft
Minor Arterial
3rd Ave.
0-ft
0-ft
Local
Adopted Plan:
9.
Daisy Mountain/New River Area Plan (adopted November 20, 2019): Subject property
identified for single-family rural densities (0-1 d.u./ac.). Land Use Policy 3 (page 36) is to
“encourage utility and communication companies to provide visually and auditorily
sensitive solutions for equipment within the Planning Area.” Staff finds the current proposal
satisfies this policy by proposing to paint the cell tower brown and building a 10 ft. tall
CMU wall around the 30 ft. x 35 ft. lease area. The paint color is to minimize the visual
effect of the tower and the 10 ft. tall screen wall is to minimize equipment cabinet cooling
fan noise, which is already limited because, according to the Applicant, the equipment
cabinets are designed to minimize cooling fan noise.
Public Participation Summary:
10.
The applicant complied with the Maricopa County Citizen Review Process with the
required posting of the site and notification by first class mail to adjacent property owners
within 300’ of the subject parcel, and to other interested parties. To date, Staff is aware
of 83 opposing parties 71 of whom are signatories to an objection/protest petition, dated
May 17, 2021, with opposition comments submitted by 12 additional parties. None of the
opposition comments are from owners of properties within 300 ft. of the subject property.
11.
The Applicant held a public meeting on June 1, 2021, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the
Crossroads Church, 42425 New River Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85086. Staff did not attend this
meeting and was not involved in the notification / invitation process for it. According to
Z2021044
Page 8 of 11
the Applicant, there were 19 attendees, including 7 same-household couples, who
responded to meeting announcements the applicant sent to 65 addresses, including the
owners of all properties within 300 ft. of the subject property. An additional 200 notification
letters were apparently sent by Mr. Alan Muller to members of the New River/Desert Hills
Community Association (NRDHCA). According to the Applicant, the meeting attendees
included owners of properties located close to the subject property, and several of the
parties who signed the opposition petition of May 17, 2021. A copy of the public meeting
sign-in sheet is attached to this report. The Applicant felt that this meeting was productive
with cordial discussion of several issues as summarized in the Citizen Participation Results
Report; however, according to Mr. Muller, several meeting attendees felt that their
questions were not addressed. Thus, Mr. Muller requested that the Applicant hold a
second public meeting. Accordingly, the Applicant worked with Ed Taylor, President of
the NRDHCA to determine if the second public meeting was necessary. Mr. Taylor stated
that he emailed notification of the current request to more than 540 parties associated
with the NRDHCA on June 23, 2021 to invite questions to the Applicant (who’s contact
information was included) about the project. Mr. Taylor also stated that the current
request was discussed at the NRDHCA Board meeting of June 24, 2021 where no
objections were stated and it was determined that no more public meetings would be
necessary. Furthermore, the Applicant confirmed with Staff, in a June 27, 2021 email, that
he received no calls or emails in response to the NRDHCA notification of June 23, 2021.
12.
The issues cited by the opposition comments include: 1) The proposed WCF location,
2) the proposed tower height of more than 65 ft., 3) the tower proposed to be painted
brown rather than treated to create a Corten (i.e. rusted) finish, 4) noise, 5) radiation,
6) tower setbacks, 7) impacts to adjacent property values, and 8) outdoor lighting.
13.
Responding to each of those issues: 1) The proposed location of the WCF is allowed
by-right in all zones if the WCF meets the applicable development standards
(MCZO Sec. 1202). If the WCF does not meet the applicable development standards,
then the Board of Supervisors may allow it as a Special Use (MCZO Art. 1202.2.8). The
Applicant states that the proposed location is necessary to provide cell coverage in the
area. The current WCF is subject to a Special Use Permit because it is setback less than
160 ft. from 3 property lines, the array is greater than 13 ft. in diameter, and no SVTs are
to be provided. 2) The proposed 80 ft. tower height meets the height limit of
MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.a and Staff has no authority to require a lower maximum height. The
Applicant states that the proposed height is also necessary to provide cell coverage in
this area, which is essential for communications, including emergency communications.
3) The Applicant proposed to paint the tower brown to be similar to the existing APS
power poles, which have a Corten (rusted) finish. This color appears to comply with
MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.d. 4) The 10 ft. tall CMU wall proposed to surround the WCF
compound is intended to minimize any off-site noise. The only apparent source of noise
would be from equipment cooling fans, which are housed in cabinets the Applicant has
stated are designed to minimize fan noise. That sound dampening along with the 10 ft.
tall CMU wall and the distance of at least 300 ft. to the closest off-site residence combine
to minimize off-site noise impacts. 5) Radiation is an issue regulated by the FCC and,
therefore, not subject to review or approval by local jurisdictions like Maricopa County.
6) As noted above, the proposed tower setbacks do not meet the 2 ft. setback for each
foot in tower height required by MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g; however, the tower is setback at
least 1 ft. for each foot in height; therefore, it does not create a fall hazard for neighboring
properties and the SUP process provides for modification of applicable development
Z2021044
Page 9 of 11
standards with approval by the Board of Supervisors. 7) Property values are not a basis
for project evaluation, rather, projects are evaluated on the basis of their compliance
with the Code, which is to achieve a balance of benefits and costs for the community as
a whole. 8) Outdoor lighting is subject to the provisions of MCZO Art. 1112 Outdoor Light
Control Provisions, which require outdoor light fixtures to be shielded to minimize off-site
glare. The proposed 10 ft. tall CMU wall around the WCF compound is also to minimize
off-site glare.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
14.
N/A.
Staff Analysis:
15.
Staff believes the current SUP request is reasonable and necessary to maintain and
expand cell phone service in this area. The subject WCF would be located approximately
100 ft. from the closest residence, which is on the subject property, and more than 300 ft.
from the next closest residence (on parcel 211-23-014E) with all other nearby residences
being at least 500 ft. from the subject property. The nearest public roadways are
Desert Hills Dr., which is approximately 300 ft. north of the subject property, and 7th Ave.,
which is approximately 650 ft. west of the subject property. The request to reduce the
160 ft. setback required by MCZO Art. 1202.1.1.3.g from the west, north and east subject
property boundaries is reasonable because the proposed, minimum 80 ft. setbacks
eliminate the possibility of the 80 ft. tall tower falling on neighboring properties and the
request is necessary because the area the tower serves is affected by its height and the
220 ft. width of the subject property cannot accommodate 160 ft. of setback from both
the east and west property boundaries. The 13 ft. diameter antenna array is necessary to
avoid radio signal interference, or “cross-talk,” between the signal receiving and sending
functions that would result if the antenna array diameter was less than approximately
13 ft. The request to eliminate the SVTs typically required for WFCs is reasonable because
the SVTs would be required at the east boundary of the subject property, where the
on-site access easement/driveway meets the ingress/egress easement that extends
further east, to 3rd Ave. The subject WCF and neighboring residential uses would generate
very few trips, which eliminates the purpose and need for the SVTs, and providing the
SVTs would require removal of significant amounts of existing vegetation, which would
only increase the visibility of the new WCF facility and would be counter to the intent of
the Code, which requires avoidance of removal of mature trees and cacti whenever
possible (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.e). While Staff understands the objections stated by the
project opponents, as stated in the opposition comments, the project complies with the
requirements for WCFs in the Rural zone, except for the development standard
modification requests discussed above, which are potentially approvable by the Board
of Supervisors under the standard SUP review and approval process (MCZO Sec. 304 and
Arts. 1202.2.8 and 1301.1.19). Furthermore, local jurisdictions like Maricopa County
cannot, by statute, regulate aspects of WCFs that are already regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Having said that, there is significant neighborhood
opposition to the proposed WCF. The level of opposition alone can be considered
grounds for legislative denial of the SUP.
Z2021044
Page 10 of 11
Recommendation:
16.
For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for
Approval, subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’.
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the combo
Site/Building Plan Set entitled “US-AZ-5068 HONDABOW”, consisting of 9 full-size
sheets, June 7, 2021, and stamped received June 11, 2021, except as modified by
the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “US-AZ-5068 (HONDABOW)”, consisting of 17 pages, dated
May 18, 2021, and stamped received May 21, 2021, except as modified by the
following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage
Plans are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must
go according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage
Policies and Standards and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
3.
Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle
applicants to future designs that are not in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies
and Standards.
d.
The following Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD)
condition shall apply:
1.
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced
project. Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff
report. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning
and Development Department procedures. Applicant may need to
submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the
Department. Review of any such application will be based on regulations
in force at the time of application.
e.
The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 80’.
Z2021044
Page 11 of 11
f.
A Minor SUP Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the
Wireless Communication Facility.
g.
This special use permit is valid for a period of 20 years and shall expire on
August 4, 2041, 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.
h.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit 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 shall revert 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:
Sean Watkins, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Combo Site/Building Plan (9 pages)
Narrative Report (17 pages)
MCENG comments (1 page)
MCESD comments (1 page)
6/1/21 Public Meeting Sign-in Sheet (1 page)
Opposition/Protest Petition (14 Pages)
Opposition Comments (28 pages)
NRDHCA Notification & Email Chain (13 pages)
Opposition Maps (3 pages)
MARICOPA COUNTY
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 0.02410468 approx.
Generated June 9, 2021 10:33 AM
Z2021044
Application Name:
Legal Description
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068 EDR
Applicant
Case Address
T06N R03E 029,
Gary R CASSEL for Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile / Clearblue Services
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary: 211-23-014F
602.426.9500
garycassel@clearblueserv ices.com
Map scale 1:821
Supervisor District No.
VERTICAL BRIDGE / T-MOBILE TO BUILD A NEW (COLLOCATABLE) 80' MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT
INCLUDED WITHIN A 30' X 35' CMU WALLED IN COMPOUND (PAINTED TO MATCH DESERT AREA)
LEGEND
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
17
PROJECT DIRECTORY
PROJECT INFORMATION
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 441.25
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 220.60 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 220.48
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 601.44
FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 67.04 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AN AREA CONTAINING 1050 SQ FT MORE OR LESS.
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
LEGEND
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
06/08/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
2
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
VACINITY MAP
STATUS FROM PRE-APP MEETING COMMENTS ON 2/16/21
1. Comprehensive Planning: No CPA Required
2. Planning Engineering: Z2021044: Form 718 – Plan Submittal Requirements for Minor Accessory
Construction; Bob Fedorka, Engineering Plan Reviewer.
3. Engineer; Maricopa County Environmental Services Department. T-Mobile Zoning Submittal for a
Wireless Communications Facility approval on a New Wireless Communications Facility (as
specified in Ordinance Chapter 12 Development Regulations, subject to sections: 1202.0 thru
1202.2. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). The Application is for a new 80’ Monopole (co-locatable) site build
located in the Northwest Center of the existing APN# 211-23-014F. Water and sewer service will
not be needed. MCESD has no concerns. Souren Naradikian, P. E., Engineer; Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department.
3
4. Drainage Plan Review Comments: The proposed construction appears to meet the
requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 1205.7.7
5. Flood Control District Comments: Work within the subject parcel is not located in a regulated
floodplain. Flood Control has no comments.
6. MCDOT Comments: MCDOT has no comments or objections to the submittal.
COMPLIANCE: Z2021044
Standard
WCF in Rural-43*
Proposed
Maximum Building Height
80 ft.
80 ft.
2 ft. setback from property lines
for each 1 ft. in height (not in
required Front Yard)1
80 ft. tower =
160 ft. Required
Setback
80 ft. Proposed
Setbacks (North &
East) and
140 ft. Proposed
Setback (East)
Antenna Array Maximum Diamter2
8 ft.
13 ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145 ft.
145 ft.
Minimum Lot Area
43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
25%
25%
25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles3
Required on both
sides of driveway at
edge of public street
No SVTs
* MCZO Section 1202
1 MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g
2 MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.h
3 MCZO Art. 1111.4
Towers and support structures shall have a maximum diameter of 30 inches
(2.5 feet):
The monopole will be a MAX 30” Per the County Ordinance Section:1202.3.1. ©. Please see attached
site plans, as part of the (SUP) zoning submittal there is a PDF of the antenna configuration showing the
monopole will be a MAX 30” (2’-6”).
The maximum diameter of antenna arrays
shall be 8 feet measured from circumference line to circumference line through
the center of the tower structure: (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1h)
ANTENNA COMPLIANCE: Per the TAC Meeting on 5/18/21 #8 & 14, PLEASE NOTE THE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED JUSTIFICATION.
4
The maximum width of the antennas is proposed to be MAX 13’ WIDE (the actual antennas distance
from one antenna to the other through the pole) Section: 1202.3.1.1.(h), As to the look of the attached
PHOTO SIMULATIONS as part of the zoning submittal at pre-app meeting. There is a required separation
of antennas due to potential diversity which causes another 1’-5” to the antenna configuration, which then
causes the extra distance from antennas one side to the other, and causes the extra distance exceeding
the 8’ regulation even though there is a narrowing on the pole as you get to the top of the pole, and any
distance less causes radio frequency interference between antennas and causes potential cross talk
between receiving and output frequencies. Please note and understand this cell site is a cell split for
capacity issues and the distance between antennas is necessary to achieve the capacity offloading
necessary to continue to provide T-Mobile Radio Frequency Engineers their required designed
requirements. The worst thing that happens with antennas placed to close together is (CROSS TALK) from
one antenna to the other, which actually spreads to the other T-Mobile sites in the immediate area which is
part of the 5G system build (different than 4G which are individual sites). These new antenna configurations
and distances are part of the new 5G network, and mandatory / required so the system build actually
functions and works. As part of the (SUP) zoning submittal there is a PDF of the antenna configuration
showing the 6 ft FASB antenna w/2 ft. standoff & COVP mounted on standoff arm which requires the
total antenna width of 6’-6” apart but intended to be visually minimized. Please see attached site plans &
diagram below.
5
Wireless communication facilities shall be setback 2 feet from all
property lines for each 1 foot in Height:
Per the TAC Meeting on 5/18/21 #7, PLEASE NOTE THE SPECICIALLY DESCRIBED
JUSTIFICATION; (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1g)
The SUP process selected shall approve this proposal as it is an eligible facility request for a new site
location of a wireless Monopole antenna site (collocatable) to be built in the Northwest Center of the existing
parcel which will include a base station compound which allows for the equipment and pole within an 10’
CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’ (painted and textured to match) the existing BROWN (APS POLE
COLOR) color poles so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding
community. As the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Radio Frequency Engineers required this immediate area and
this specific parcel is Zoned RU43, and like most of the parcels in the area are limited in their acreage as
all the parcels are for a 1/2-mile radius, and as most of the parcels are limited in their useful parcel acreage
due in most cases to existing WASHES. Vertical Bridge is requesting a Special Use Permit Approval for a
1:1 Setback to the parcel property lines, which is allowing for an SUP process due to the limited parcels
that fit the required T-Mobile location to comply with the propagations of the system build (see T-Mobil
Propagation Map). Also, refer to OTHER CANDIDATES: CANDIDATE SEARCH (Exhaustive) paragraph below;
Vertical Bridge met and worked with over 13 candidates and their ownerships all within or just outside of
the 1/2-mile SEARCH RING in the County. The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical
aesthetics of the surrounding area which is owned by Arizona State Land and has no known health hazards.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with the area that has many other like
electrical poles which are the same color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to reduce
visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
The fire station (tried the tower at the fire station and was DENIED due to no room for equipment space
and no room on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is environmentally off limits to any
building) with their own tower mast (which is way over 2400’ away West) from (VB) proposed site
location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB
request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile
mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are
many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area, (see the T-Mobile existing site
propagation map as part of the submittal package. The existing right of way power poles, light standards
and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which
are found does not work for the RF objectives. It was found that there is a greater radio frequency
requirement in this immediate area for a lot more radio frequency capability then a small cell antenna
configuration will allow including, after a thorough investigation the existing power poles as they do not
offer the height, or the antennas configuration demanded by the lack of radio frequency required for this
area to stop the block calls and even the 911 emergency cut offs.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their requirements due
to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities on those zoned like parcels, and
due to the limited space and washes within the parcels in the immediate area of Maricopa County would
allow Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this proposed location.
6
VERTICAL BRIDGE /T-MOBILE COVERAGE (ISSUE):The request of Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Zoning
Submittal for Maricopa County Zoning (SUP) Application for submittal process for a Wireless SUP for a
Wireless Communications Facility approval is required to supply residents and those traveling through the
area with the most advanced technology and reliability possible, along with the facility which will enhance
call quality and data usage, which is not present at this time which includes 5G. T-Mobile is realizing very
poor coverage in the area of the proposed tower. Please see the (T-Mobile existing tower propagation map)
as part of the zoning submission which shows the existing radio frequency hole in the T-Mobile system
specifically in this immediate area, which will be covered with this site and its location.
The nature of uses and Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile required location due to this specific location, and
the positive affect on adjacent and nearby premises – T-Mobile has a major problem with their coverage
in this immediate area and requires a telecom site within the radius of the Reid Ranch (see propagation
map) site as that is the location which allows T- Mobile radio frequency to meet up with the other existing
sites as seen in the attached T-Mobile radius map as part of the zoning submittal package. T-Mobile is
affected as to their much-needed location of the proposed telecom site location where the site location is
zoned RU-43.
All the T-Mobile existing sites in the area are now in overuse and causing this proposed site location to be
vital to fill the actual hole in the T-Mobile radio frequency where T-Mobile is missing radio frequency which
effects all persons who are trying to make phone call or using their T-Mobile instruments in any way
including E911 Emergencies.
The location of the zoning around the site of the existing parcel (Reid Ranch-RU-43); The location of the
zoning around the site is West RU-43 and existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-
43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-
3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. All the zoning in the immediate area over one-mile Radius of the proposed
site is zoned RU-43, which the County does allow for telecommunication facilities to be erected.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their requirements due
to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities on those zoned like parcels, and
with the limited space of the parcels in the immediate area Maricopa County would allow Vertical Bridge /
T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this proposed location.
T-Mobile is a major wireless carrier, and their license is federally mandated to provide Coverage to all
persons using their wireless instruments. The expectancy of the federal government in providing this license
is that each area T-Mobile is present that E911 is mandatory for all emergency services, which allows each
individual’s precise location in the case of an emergency services, which is sparse at best in this immediate
area. T-Mobile / Vertical Bridge is requesting the SUP process selected which shall approve this proposal
as it is an eligible facility request for a new site location of a wireless Monopole antenna site and base
station compound approval. The approval will allow T-Mobile on the Zoning use and building permit as the
site zoning is really for a T-Mobile Telecommunication site to allow for the required missing radio frequency
and 5G capability, which means NO E911 for the people who expect and think they are safe.
NOISE: The proposed WCF will not cause any significant increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic in
adjacent residential areas. It will not, after construction, cause any emission of odor, dust, gas, noise,
vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions, nor will it contribute in any
measurable way to the deterioration of this area of the County, or contribute to the lowering of property
values. The value of the surrounding residential properties should actually improve due to the better
coverage of the area. There is no generator planned on for this site and the equipment cabinets are made
to cool the radios within and have been manufactured to depress any noise. To add to the noise
consideration at the site Vertical Bridge has enlarged the height of the compound wall from the originally
proposed 8’ tall CMU wall to a 10’ CMU wall painted and textured to match) the existing BROWN (APS
7
POLE COLOR) color poles so as to reduce NOISE, visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
ASTHETICS: Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
A.Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish, or, subject to any applicable standards of
the FAA be painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness,
as being suggested by the surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible,
use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural
setting and surrounding buildings. The compound will be a 10’ CMU Wall proposed will be painted
and textured BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community.
c. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical
and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible
with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as
visually unobtrusive as possible. BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
SETBACKS-The minimum setbacks for the zoning district shall apply to all towers, equipment shelters,
and accessory buildings. The dimensions of the entire lot or parcel shall apply and not the dimensions of
the leased area. Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile proposes a 1:1 setback 1202.2.(a). The zoning of the subject
property is RU-43 (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the zoning around the site is West RU-43 and
existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert
Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. The
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile meets the County Ordinance SETBACKS for EQUIPMENT on the ground and
the TOWER in the existing parcel, as the antennas and tower are and complies with the County setbacks:
North 80’-0” South 250’-3” East 140’-6” & West 80’-0” (to the tower). The East & West, North & South
abutting properties are zoned appropriately for a zoning approval along with the setbacks. Access is off
3rd Ave, which is off W. Desert Hills Dr. North, which is where Vertical Bridge will have an easement and
owned by the same owner.
OTHER CANDIDATES: CANDIDATE SEARCH (Exhaustive).
Vertical Bridge has been working with this T-Mobile SEARCH RING for the last year and half to find the
right candidate and its location acceptable to both T-Mobile RF Engineering, Vertical Bridge, Maricopa
County Planning & Development, and the Landlords (owners of the property). Vertical Bridge met and
worked with over 13 candidates and their ownerships all within or just outside of the 1/2-mile SEARCH
RING in the County. All properties that had enough parcel size that would allow for a 2:1 setback and
found NO candidates that did not have an existing topography that; water washes, lower (fall off)
topography, access issues, or just no consideration.
8
A. Per the FCC, the County can require an SUP and other processes for their review and approval
process. However, the County cannot design a carriers’ network or how many sites the carrier
needs to build to provide design coverage. Please note and understand this cell site is a cell split
for capacity issues along with the new 5G system build, and the height is necessary / required to
achieve the capacity offloading necessary to continue to provide designed requirements. Please
refer to the FCC Sections accordingly: It is found that over 75% of 911 Emergency Use is wireless.
B. The proposed site is the only alternative to having NO site which means a multitude of new towers,
which could cover the Vertical Bridge (T-Mobile) (RF) coverage objectives where there is a major
hole in their coverage 5G system build where right now has blocked calls, emergency calls which
is causing terrible coverage, per the FCC Federal Communications Directives. (See Carrier
Propagation Map for coverage).
The FCC has interpreted TCA Section 332(c)(3)(A) to preempt local authority to dictate the design of a
provider’s network. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure
Inv., 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 at N. 84 (F.C.C. 2018); see also Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d
983,
989 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, no local authority may determine the number, placement, or operation of
cell towers because that responsibility has been delegated exclusively to the FCC. Bastien, 205 F.3d at
989.
For the Counties consideration, please Refer to the 2018 FCC decision that the local jurisdictions cannot
“design” a carriers’ network. The height required was the minimum height by the carrier necessary to
achieve network parameters. The city does not have the authority to change the design parameters of the
carrier they have deemed necessary to achieve their (RF) coverage requirements. Please see the
Propagation T-Mobile Coverage Map.
1. ACCESS to the site location: The Vertical Bridge site location access will be from the existing
North 3rdAve. access off of Desert Hills Dr., where Vertical Bridge will build a road within the
existing 30’ Access & Utilities easement off 3rd Ave. West to the proposed site location on the
parcel and there will be a parking space allocated next to the site location, all per the County
Wireless Ordinance. The site location for the equipment Compound is proposed to be located in
the Northwest Center of the existing parcel, and the existing parcel which is the Reid Ranch is
completely fenced into the North, South, East & West, and with the distance to the next residential
ownership causing blocking the view of the compound from those sides, along with the distance
from the site.
9
2. 25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) are required on both sides
of the proposed driveway (access easement); Per the TAC Meeting on
5/18/21 #9, PLEASE NOTE THE SPECICIALLY DESCRIBED JUSTIFICATION; (MCZO Art.
1111.4).
The SUP process allows for development standard modifications, upon request and with
justification for any/all such modifications, It would seem that the ACCESS ROAD is being made
where it is to accomplish the Access to the site from 3rd Ave, and the existing foliage & trees that
is to the North of the said Access road is purposely left existing (NOT CUT DOWN TO 2’) there as
to block the view from the ROW Desert Hills Dr., all the way to the new Wireless Communication
Facility (WCF) compound as to again block the view from anyone being able to view the compound
walls and the dirt like road proposed to the site. I do not believe the intentions of the county is to
tear down all the existing beautiful foliage and trees north of the access road, as there is no
concern of visual interference of any kind.?? Also, once built out the use will generate very little
traffic, as the unmanned site has a frequency of visiting the cell site is generally once a month by
the cellular technicians.
3. DESIGNATED SITE PARKING SPACE-The proposed compound will have a designate parking
space next to the proposed site.
4. PAINTING and LIGHTING. All facilities shall be painted or constructed of materials to minimize
visual impacts. All of the tower and compound walls shall be painted in non-reflective and
preferably BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community. The Vertical Bridge Monopole will incorporate a pole
that is colored to match a which matches the existing other electrical poles in the immediate area
which is BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community. Lighting will be limited to the facing of the compound
maintenance area and will be on a timer and only used when the cellular technician is there. The
lighting will be a new full cut-off LED lighting, inside compound mounted below the top of wall on
4-HR timer switch, (lighting to comply with Section 1112 of MCZO regarding outdoor lighting.
4. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING. The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge site
location including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave. East, where the
landscaping of the land in the immediate area is overall flat land with small to medium size
vegetation type bushes.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and / or the
road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility
Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be endangered cactus they will be
replace on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as part of the
road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the
dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
10
5. RF Emissions and Radio frequency limited exposure are within FCC limits for this proposed
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile, and the Wireless carrier is submitting a report demonstrating
compliance with FCC regulation (see below). It is found that over 75% of 911 Emergency Use is
wireless.
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are registered with the Federal
Communication Commission and part of the EAS program. Each cell tower is mandated as part
of the EAS national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable television systems,
wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers, and direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the President to
address the American public during a national emergency. The system also may be used by state
and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER alerts and
weather information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction with Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and
personal communications service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination
of antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a "cellular or PCS cell site"
or "base station." Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high
Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to transmit
signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units.
At this cell site, the total radio frequency (RF) power that can be transmitted from each transmitting
antenna has been approved by the FCC on the number of radio channels (or transmitters) and that
have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission and the power of each
transmitter. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per
channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular or PCS cell sites in urban and
suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts
corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used. In
urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCS cell sites,
even lower ERPs are typical. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from
a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases.
Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than the exposure that might be
encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements
made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are
well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC,
(which makes them so safe) and in this case the T-Mobile antennas will be at the 76’ RAD CENTER
level, which will be well below the exposure limits recommended.
11
Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself
or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC
height restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away from potential exposure. To that
end, no communication facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power
densities that exceed the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure to RF fields.
Certification that a facility meets this standard is required. A copy of the certification from the FCC
shall be submitted to the city.
6. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY: The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined
as “Monopole” and will not cause any adverse impact on adjacent property or properties in the
area. As this is an un-manned facility and we only maintain the property around once a month, but
in the case of an emergency it would be sooner. There will be no increase in Vehicular or
pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas, emissions of any order, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; contribution in a measurable way
to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the lowering of property values, Per Sections
1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 & 1202.6.
7. REMOVAL AND DISCONTINUATION OF USE: All equipment associated with a
communication facility shall be removed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
discontinuation of the use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition.
The operators agreeing to such removal and allowing the County access across private property
to affect such removal shall be a condition of approval of each permit issued.
8. COUNTY Requested use(s):
BUSINESS OPERATIONS
(a) (business operations)
is for Vertical
Bridge to build a Collocatable Wireless
Telecommunication 80’ monopole including T-Mobile Equipment and antennas, hours/day of
operation, and number of employees.
The frequency of use as to hours/day of operation, and number of employees is
generally a visit for (1) man for maintenance once a month unless there is an
emergency and stays for a few hours.
(b). Identify the electrical service provider as APS
©. Police service is provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
12
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
(a) (Timeframe for construction or phasing of the project for construction; description and location
of buildings.)
The Zoning Process is considered to be a 6 TO 9 Month process and a Building Permit
process to be 45 days, and a 30-day build cycle for the construction of the cell site in
total. The location of the Telecom site is the site location for the equipment Compound
is proposed to be located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel, and the
existing parcel which is a Reid Ranch.
(b) Address the utility providers for water, sewer, police and fire services.
1. NO WATER WILL BE USED FOR THIS SITE
2. NO SEWER WILL BE USED FOR THIS SITE
3. Police- Phoenix Police Department Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road, Phoenix (Maricopa County)
4. Fire-City of Phoenix-Fire Station –
Fire Department; Address 3210 W Canotia Pl, Anthem AZ·
5. Identify the electrical service provider.
6. Police service is provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
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?
80’ including the proposed antennas.
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).
The Daisy Mountain Fire Station #145 is 2400’ West of Vertical Bridge proposed site location.
13
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 locations within the .5-mile radius (WCF’s search area).of the proposed Vertical
Bridge site which is a T-Mobile required location that has height approximately equal or
greater than the requested tower within the WCF’s search area.
4.
Provide a map showing the service areas which the proposed facility will serve.
Provisions for future collocation. Vertical Bridge commercial communication facilities shall be encouraged
to promote future facility and site sharing so there will LESSOR need for more cell towers in this are for the
county to be concerned about. Technical evidence will be provided as to the infeasibility, either technically
and/or economically, of collocation or grouping prior to the issuance of a new use permit for a facility that
would not be considered to be co-located or grouped under this division. Proposals for the placement of
collocation facilities on existing Vertical Bridge wireless telecommunication collocation facilities are subject
to both the carrier and Vertical Bridge requirements, and our facility is collocatable.
VERTICAL
BRIDGE
/
T-MOBILE
½-MILE
SEARCH
RING
14
5.
Explain any attempts or possibilities that have been investigated relating to co-location with another provider
or existing facility.
There are no other towers in the 2400’ area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied
the VB request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due
to the T-Mobile mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve
the services as there are many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area,
(see the T-Mobile existing site propagation map as part of the submittal package. The
existing right of way power poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly
investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which are found does not work for
the RF objectives. It was found that there is a greater radio frequency requirement in this
immediate area for a lot more radio frequency capability then a small cell antenna
configuration will allow including, after a thorough investigation the existing power poles
as they do not offer the height, or the antennas configuration demanded by the lack of radio
frequency required for this area to stop the block calls and even emergency cut offs.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their
requirements due to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities
on those zoned like parcels, and with the limited space of the parcels in the immediate area
of Maricopa County would allow Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this
proposed location.
6.
Explain how this request can facilitate co-location with other users.
The (SUP) Application is for a new 80’ Monopole (collocatable- to fit at least 2 more carriers
including equipment space) site build located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel
with the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile 6’ antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole at (80’
top of antennas) painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community, and equipment within
an 10’ CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’ painted and textured to match painted a BROWN
(APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.. Equipment compound behind the walled in compound will be on
cement slabs, which complies with the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance which
mandates the County Regulations and requirements
7.
Will the request involve removal of mature trees or cacti? If so, discuss plans for relocation of such
vegetation.
EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING. The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge
proposed site location including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave.
East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and
/ or the road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated
Access & Utility Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be
endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as
part of the road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site
through the dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
15
8.
Discuss the following compatibility issues:
a.
Setbacks from residential uses.
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the
zoning around the site is West RU-43 and existing raw landowner is located in
Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South
is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills Dr., then the
residences on the other side North. South is RU-43 and Arizona State Land 250’-3”,
East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over 501’
West.
b.
Setbacks from all property lines.
The Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile meets the County Ordinance SETBACKS for EQUIPMENT
on the ground and the TOWER in the existing parcel, as the antennas and tower are and
complies with the County setbacks: North 80’-0” South 250’-3” East 140’-6” & West 80’-
0” (to the tower). The East & West, North & South abutting properties are zoned
appropriately for a zoning approval along with the setbacks. Access is off 3rd Ave,
which is off W. Desert Hills Dr. North, which is where Vertical Bridge will have an
easement and owned by the same owner.
c.
Setbacks from uses/structures on adjacent property.
Guest House is 140’-6” from site location East and house is on 3rd parcel East 523’ from
site location. There are no other structures on any of the parcels.
d.
Setbacks from public and private streets or access easements.
East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is Arizona
State Land and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave 501’ West.
e.
Future additional appurtenances or expansion plans.
Vertical Bridge has no expansion plans.
f.
Color and type of tower, landscaping, and fence screening.
TYPE OF TOWER AND CMU WALL COMPOUND: The (SUP) Application is for a new 80’
Monopole (collocatable) site build located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel
with the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile 6’ antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole
at (80’ top of antennas), and equipment within an 10’ CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’
painted and textured to match the existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so
as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding
community. Equipment compound behind the walled in compound will be on cement
slabs, which complies with the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance which
mandates the County Regulations and requirements.
16
COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS: Towers and antennae shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA to be painted
a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community..
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent
possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend
them into the natural setting and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS POLE
COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
c. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or
closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna
and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible painted a BROWN (APS
POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
LANDSCAPING: There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed
site location and / or the road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing
30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there
are found to be endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
a. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and
as part of the road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to
get to the site through the dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
g.
Surrounding non-residential uses (if applicable).
NO Surrounding non-residential uses
9.
If a stealth design is not being proposed, please explain why.
There are NO structures with any more height than a house or barn of any kind within a 1-
mile radius of the site or even the search ring. The whole area is not conducive to a stealth
like monopalm, monopine, monoeucalyptus tree which is 80’ in height other than a
monopole (even if you planted other real trees), and there is another monopole which can
be found at the Daisy Mountain Fire Station. There are no other towers in the 2400’ area;
Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB request and does not have space either
on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile mature system build they really
need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are many blocked calls
due to the weak signal in the surrounding area, (see the T-Mobile existing site propagation
map as part of the submittal package. The existing right of way power poles, light standards
and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency
Engineers which are found does not work for the RF objectives. It was found that there is a
greater radio frequency requirement in this immediate area for a lot more radio frequency
17
capability then a small cell antenna configuration will allow including, after a thorough
investigation the existing power poles as they do not offer the height, or the antennas
configuration demanded by the lack of radio frequency required for this area to stop the
block calls and even emergency cut offs.
The proposed scope of work is detailed in full in the attached information as part of the Zoning Pre-App
Submittal Package including Zoning Drawings, and a brief summary including a Zoning the Special Use
Permit Application, T-Mobile Informational Booklet on this property, along with a Parcel Map, Aerial Map,
Zoning Map, General Plan Map, Photo Simulations, required photos of the site (T-Mobile SCIP (information
sheets)), and Ownership Authorization.
T-Mobile and Vertical Bridge are requesting a Zoning Submittal for Maricopa County Zoning Special Use
Permit Application for the submittal process for a Wireless SUP for a Wireless Communications Facility
approval on a New Wireless Communications Facility (as specified in Ordinance Chapter 12 Development
Regulations, subject to sections: subject to the provisions and standards outlined in Section 1202, and
outlined in Article 1202.3 of the Ordinance with a Citizens Participation Plan shall be required to obtain a
Special Use Permit approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The proposed site build is to Apply for a new site build as an 80’ Monopole (collocatable) Per Section
1202.2.2 and Article 1202.3 including the Citizens Participation Plan for a site build located in the Northwest
Center of the existing parcel with the T-Mobile 8’ long antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole
painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested
by the surrounding community. at (80’ top of antennas), and equipment within a 10’ CMU walled in
compound 30’ x 35’ painted and textured to match the existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles
so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community. The use of the
proposed telecommunication facility will be in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
the laws of Maricopa County. Z2021044
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
T-Mobile / Vertical Bridge LLC Contractor
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
Jeri Loucks, P.E.C.F.M
Planning & Development
501 North 44th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Phone: (602) 506-6332
Fax: (602) 506-3282
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Email address:
JeriLoucks@mail.maricopa.gov
Maricopa County
Planning & Development Department
Date:
06/07/2021
Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director, Department of Planning &
Development
Attn:
Sean Watkins, Planner, Planning & Development Services
From:
Jeri Loucks, P.E.C.F.M., Plans Examiner Engineer (Drainage),
Planning & Development Services
cc:
Michael Norris, P.E., Drainage Engineering Manager, Planning &
Development
Subject:
Z2021044 – Special Use Permit (SUP) – TMobile/Vertical Bridge
(D2 Memo)
Job Site Address: 39212 N. 3rd Ave. Phoenix, Az 85086
APN(s):
211-23-014F
Engineering Review has reviewed the plans and report submittal date stamped
05/19/2021 for the subject application. Engineering Review has no objections to
this application provided any approval includes the following stipulations:
1. At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage Plans
are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must go
according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage Policies and
Standards and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the
time of application for construction.
3. Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only
and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle applicants to
future designs that are not in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies and Standards.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Water and Waste Management
Division
Subdivision Infrastructure &
Planning Program
1001 N. Central Avenue #150
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Phone: (602) 506-1058
Fax: (602) 506-5813
TDD 602 506 6704
Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department
DATE:
April 23, 2021
TO :
Sean Watkins, Planning & Development Dept.
Planner
FROM:
Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile. Z2021044
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project is a request for Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility at APN# 211-23-014F. Water
and Sewer is not required, MCESD has no concerns.
Based on the above, MCESD raise no concern for this project to the Planning &
Development Department in Accela Automation on April 23, 2021.
Stipulations:
None
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be
made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of
application.
May 17, 2021
Maricopa County Supervisors
Planning and Development
Attn: Sean Watkins, Planner
The attached file serves as an Objection/Protest to the
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
#Z2021044
For parcel 211-23-014 F
39212 N 3rd Ave
Phoenix AZ 85086
Signatures represent 11 sheets of property owners who are located
nearby the referenced property. The Petition Guide will provide you with
each parcel #, property address and homeowner’s name.
Of considerable concern to petitioners is the arbitrary positioning of a commercial
facility within residential confines. The Citizen Participation Letter, which was
hand delivered to surrounding neighbors, indicates that T Mobile would be
erecting a new 80' pole.
The last sentence of the Citizen Participation Letter states that the facility would
not generate noise, fumes or other waste that would impact the surrounding
community. We petitioners ask then, how the proposed cooling fans, which are
scheduled to be installed on top of the commercial facility, will have their noise
contained within.
Finally, should we assume that some sort of new innovation (not described in the
Citizen Participation Letter) has been incorporated into this commercial facility
that will take care of the statement about no “other waste being generated”? We,
of course, are referring to any radiation that might be emitted from the antennas.
Please note that as of May 13, 2021 a notification sign was posted on Desert
Hills Dr. moved from 3rd Ave that was away from the property limits.
Neighborhood contact:
Alan Muller, 39307 N 9th Ave, Desert Hills AZ
85086 4DaisyMountain@gmail.com 623-465-8888
Alan Muller
From:
Herb Kwan
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Cell Tower SUP 2021044
Date:
Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:08:55 PM
Dear Mr. Watkins,
This is in response to the above referenced subject. I am a resident of Desert Hills area and in direct line to this
proposed cell tower. The reason we chose this area and our home is because of the rural ness and the quality of life
presented to us.
This proposed cell tower will be a blight on the landscape and a total eyesore. At 80 feet tall, this is too much, it is
more than double the height of existing power poles. The zoning of the area will be changed which will present a
precedence for any future developments.
I strongly oppose the development of this proposed project.
Herb and Barbara Kwan
121 W Fernwood Drive
Sent from my iPad
Alan & Candy Muller
39307 N 9th Ave
Desert Hills AZ 85086
211-50-034-R
Sean Watkins-Planner, P & Z Commissioners, Board of Supervisors,
When I was a P & Z Commissioner and assisted in updating the WCF’s,
there was no “by right”. Fortunately, Maricopa County maintains zoning, in
order to protect its unincorporated communities.
The array of the antenna limited to 8’
For every foot up, there must 2’ out to the property line
Lighting must be inside the compound and shielded to protect the dark
skies ordinance
It is important that we consider 1202.2.6 in the zoning ordinance “the
standards contained in this Section with regard to height,
diameter, and design are concealment elements to ensure
structures do not have an adverse visual impact or harm the public
welfare”
T-Mobile is attempting to erect their WCF in our area without consideration
of the community, by not complying with county zoning. Example: there is
only 1 of 4 property lines that is 160’ or more. We believe this is one of
many towers to be erected by T-Mobile in our area.
We presently have 2 of the 3 major carriers servicing Desert Hills. and the
5g Verizon tower down the street does NOT have a 15’ array.
We hereby request that the P & Z Commission and the Board of
Supervisors deny SUP Z2021044.
Respectfully,
The Mullers
From:
4daisymountain@gmail.com
To:
"Gary Cassel"; Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
"Morris Michelson"; "Steven DeJonge"
Subject:
RE: AZ-5068 HONDA BOW- Z2021044-INTRO TO COUNTY PLANNER SEAN WATKINS & ALAN MILLER
Date:
Monday, April 26, 2021 11:38:25 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Gary,
The material used on the electric poles is “CORTEN”. Nothing less
would be accepted. The height of the poles are 65’ hence why we have
been using 64’ for
WCF’s. I would suggest that if you cannot meet this criteria you look at
another site. Also, consider 2-10 year stipulations to possibly be
renewed.
PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL
Alan Muller
4DaisyMountain@gmail.com
(602) 432-2800
From: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:49 AM
To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Steven DeJonge
<stevendejonge@clearblueservices.com>; 4DAISYMOUNTAIN@GMAIL.COM
Subject: FW: AZ-5068 HONDA BOW- Z2021044-INTRO TO COUNTY PLANNER SEAN WATKINS & ALAN
MILLER
Hey Sean:
I have asked the VB Architect to revise the ZD’s to show the commitment VB made to Alan Miller and
the County as to :
1. REVISED SUP NUMBER Z2021044
2. showing the 10 ft. wall and updating notes
3. Note all lighting is full cut off on timer and mounted below the top of wall., See note on sheet
C-7 detail #1.
4. There is Still a question about the pole color and we are waiting for Alan Miller who the
County want make sure is part of the process GETS US A COLOR FOR THE POLE THAT IS
ACCEPTABLE BY VB?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW WAT YOU LIKE AS TO REVISING THE SUP APPLICATION, AS TO THE HIGHT OF
THE WALL & WHEN WE GET IT THE POTENTIAL COLOR OF THE POLE ?
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From:
Janet Mendenhall
To:
Gary Cassel; Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
jtmpainls@aol.com
Subject:
Re: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON 6/1/21
Date:
Thursday, June 3, 2021 8:30:44 PM
Gary and Sean,
All of the attached information provided in your email was written by T- Mobile, a self-
serving source of this information. As a distant, third-ranked cell carrier trying to hold onto a
place in this business, T-Mobile doesn’t care about the negative impact to Desert Hills
homeowner property values caused by the cell tower installation. They care about their
business.
I don’t care about their business and the federal government push for 5G infrastructure doesn’t
require me to use this carrier or that all carriers must be equal. There are other stronger carriers
for me to choose from that will not result in an eyesore in our neighborhood and these same
carriers don’t appear to have had the same geographic circle limitations in their 5G network
build. I can call 911, or the police today without this tower.
Some of the written response you have provided in this email is difficult to understand and
does not really address the issues raised in the meeting. The owner of the land for the proposed
site does not live in Desert Hills or knows any of the property owners that are impacted. You
seem to question why we aren’t complaining about the cell tower located at the near-by fire
station. The fire station is not a residence but is a tastefully built facility, and the existing
tower is not a monolith that rises out of the desert in the middle of residential properties. The
Anthem tower isn’t in the middle of homes either-it is in a commercially zoned area. We are
asking for the tower to be moved to another location or T-Mobile will need to live with a gap
in coverage until their networking can facilitate more than a 1/2 mile circle for coverage.
John and I do not want this location used for the T-Mobile cell tower.
Janet &John Mendenhall
38860 N 7th Avenue
Phoenix AZ. 85086
Parcel # 211-50-005N
Sent from my iPhone
From: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Date: June 3, 2021 at 4:02:31 PM MST
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com, Renee Hunter
<renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>, alrakofsky@gmail.com, Jessica
Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>, Vivian Decker
<vrdecker3@gmail.com>, janetmendenhall@gmail.com,
mhuels@msn.com, rogerrayaz@protonnail.com, cj4fun51@aol.com,
marberry2014@outlook.com, charryzip@gmail.com,
bats_az@hotmail.com, marchelle-johnstone@gmail.com,
amordarakotsk@gmail.comy, cabrio1937@gmail.com,
fakbeye3@yahoo.com, azfirecop@gmail.com, Lisa Paffrath
<tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>, "Sean Watkins (PND)"
<Sean.Watkins@maricopa.gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -
UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON 6/1/21
TO ALL THAT ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON 6/1/21
GOOD AFTERNOON
Thank you so much to all of you for your discussions and concerns as to
the proposed Vertical Bridge Telecommunication site at the community
meeting held on 6/1/21.
I wanted to write you directly if you don’t mind, as I really do care and
want all of you to be as much informed as possible especially as to
answer to your concerns directly that you brought up, and also in writing
so everyone is clear on what was asked and the answers that were given
at the meeting. , and I am also including the County Planner.
There is no update yet as to the dates for any of the hearings sorry to say.
I did not prioritize the concerns, but wanted to answer I believe every
concern we discussed at the community meeting.
1. NOISE
There is very little or No noise as the individual cabinets are
internally cooled within, and the cabinets holding the radios are
built to allow for no noise or the decibels of any noise would be
blocked by the compound walls height, as mitigated to 10’ and
not the initial 8’ that was applied for. As the walled in compound
walls are now proposed to be 10’ tall, and if there were any noise
it would be blocked by the 10’ wall.
2. LOCATION
I know you are concerned with the location of the site, and want
you to know that after considering over 13 different property
owners in a .5 mile radius of the proposed site, because of washes
and limited space along with ownership considerations, Vertical
Bridge thought the site needed to be as far away from the
residences as possible, and still stay within the T-Mobile required
search area. As there are no residences anywhere in the vicinity of
the site location , as the nearest home is over 400’+ to the East (2)
parcels East, and the WCF site build located in the Northwest
Center of the existing parcel where the setbacks to the nearest
ROW’s are over 350’+ to Desert Hills Rd. with residences even
further, and over 500’+ to 7th Ave, where the site is surrounded
by existing APS Electrical poles, the site location was the furthest
we could be away from the residences. The real challenge was to
find a parcel where the WASHES on the property did not conflict
with the location as the water rises and could wipe out the whole
site!!
3. SET BACKS
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43);
The location of the zoning where the site is proposed and around
the site which is allowed by the county is West RU-43 and existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ
State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ
State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills
Dr., then the residences on the other side North. South is RU-43
and Arizona State Land 250’-3”, East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from
site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing raw landowner
is located in Cornville AZ, and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over
501’ West.
4. FIRE STATION & SURROUNDING PARCELS
The fire station (I tried to locate the site at the tower at the fire station
and was DENIED due to no room for equipment space and no room
on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is
environmentally off limits to any building) with their own tower mast
(which is way over 2400’ away West) from (VB) proposed site
location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ radius area; Per Section:
1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB request and does not have
space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-
Mobile mature system build they really need this proposed site
location to improve the services as there are many blocked calls due
to the weak signal in the surrounding area. The existing right of way
power poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly
investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which are
found does not work for the RF objectives, as they are too close to
residences and not tall enough or strong enough to incorporate the
required antennas. Furthermore, there is already and has been a
Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station
just down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site
location less than 2400' away, and has been there for many years.
5. PROPERTY VALUES
I think you will find the attachment on PROPERTY VALUES and the
affect as to the proposed site and its location very informative as
to (Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021). You will note that the FCC
and all the carriers have researched and found that 75% of
phones used by the public are wireless phones, as they allow the
freedom to communicate where ever they are! When someone
wants to buy property these days they actually consider if their
phones will work so as to communicate with work and loved ones,
data transfer, streaming live and TV events. T-Mobile actually has
very poor and in some cases there is no coverage in the area
where the site is proposed.
6. HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER REQUIRED BY VERTICAL
BRIDGE, T-MOBILE AND THIER RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS.
Both Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile are requiring the height of the
proposed tower to be at 80’. The reason is to directly
communicate uninterrupted with the existing T-Mobile site
locations in the vicinity. This requirement is so as to accomplish a
system build or the 5G Network and not just a stand-alone towers
where the 4G network use to be. This height of 80’ (where the
antennas will be at) will allow T-Mobiles network to accomplish
the even flow of radio frequency, which will stop the poor
coverage, block calls, or capability of calls in or out, including the
911 Emergency calls, both in or out.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone
service, including cellular and personal communications service
(PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination of
antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as
a "cellular or PCS cell site" or "base station." Cellular or PCS cell site
towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high Antennas are
usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group
used to transmit signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas
used to receive signals from mobile units.
The Carrier considers the use of each telecom site to be
interconnected with the other existing carrier sites, as that is the
whole premise for the carriers system build, and now that there
are radios for all the carriers including T-Mobile to the 5G
Network it is imperative that each site coordinates and
interconnects as 5G is a system build, and not like what you are
used to from before, which allows the actual radio frequency to
be less than 4G as it blends with the existing towers.
7. 911-EMERGENCY CALLS
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are
registered with the Federal Communication Commission and part
of the EAS program. 911- EMERGENCY CALLS. Each cell tower is
mandated as part of the EAS national public warning system that
requires broadcasters, cable television systems, wireless cable
systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers,
and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the
communications capability to the President to address the
American public during a national emergency. The system also
may be used by state and local authorities to deliver important
emergency information, such as AMBER alerts and weather
information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction
with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
Every one of these Agencies require as part of the FCC Licensing
to each carrier that they MUST be able to broadcast their radio
frequencies incorporating these systems as part of their obligation
to have the license. So when there is very little coverage or in this
site location there is the potential of no coverage, where there is
the possibility of a 911-call not going through or a Federal
Emergency broadcast that is why Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile really
needs the site to bridge the gap of NO Coverage in this area
between the existing T-Mobile sites, which the T-Mobile RF
Engineers are requiring their antennas to be at 80’ to accomplish
the most important RF coverage objectives, which is to link up
with the existing sites.
8. FEDERAL GUIDELINES
From the FCC.
Decision May Not Be Based on or Regulate Radio Frequency
Emissions Cities may not regulate placement, construction
of modification of WCFs based on radio frequency (“RF”)
emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with
FCC RF emissions regulations.
Cities may also not attempt to regulate the operation of WCFs
based on these 8 City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 725;
City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 994, citing, Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 580
[stating that the zoning board may consider “other valid public
goals such as safety and aesthetics”]; T-Mobile Cent., LLC v.
Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County (10th Cir. 2008) 546 F.3d
1299, 1312 [noting that “aesthetics can be a valid ground for local
zoning decisions”]; Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay (2d Cir.
1999) 166 F.3d 490, 494 [recognizing that “aesthetic concerns can
be a valid basis for zoning decisions”]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v.
City of Hillsboro (D. Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1255.
The FCC and Local and State Advisory Committee of the FCC
published a guide for local officials to help determine whether a
facility complies with FCC standards. It can be found online at
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety.
<image002.png>
9. Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a
manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such
facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC
height restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away
from potential exposure. To that end, no communication facility or
combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities
that exceed the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure
to RF fields. Certification that a facility meets this standard is
required. A copy of the certification from the FCC shall be submitted
to the city.
10. LIGHTING
Please see the actual lighting specification on the actual site plans
the were submitted to the County. This will show that the lighting
for the site is going to be located below the top of the 10’ wall
and will be shaded to only light the lease space area inside the
compound where both the pole and the equipment will be
located to work on in the case of an emergency.
<image052.png>
11. COLOR OF THE POLE AND COMPOUND WALLS & ASTHETICS
The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical
aesthetics of the surrounding area which includes existing APS
poles, and also the raw land between the ROW’s which is owned by
Arizona State Land.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with
the area that has many other like electrical poles which are the same
color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to
reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS:
Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of
the FAA to be painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to
reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related
structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors,
textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the
natural setting and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS
POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as
being suggested by the surrounding community.
12. NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication
sites. (Please See attachment Cellsites_public_health_final-2021),
As we discussed at the community meeting, the radio frequency
waves have been researched since the 1950’s when TV
broadcasting off South Mountain was built, and the wireless
telephones for all the carriers have been existence since the late
1980’s, where everyone in the U.S. and your area has been living
and working within all of these wireless frequencies on a constant
basis. This includes the existing wireless carrier site locations that
are all around you now, including the fire station, the schools, and
churches in your immediate area!
13. NO INTERFEARANCE WITH EXISTING TELEPHONES, TV, OR
CABLE
There will be NO interference if a new cell phone tower is built with
any current cell phone service through any other carrier. There will
not be any interference with any Digital Television reception. The
FCC sells individual licenses for specific radio frequencies to each
carrier or wireless companies so there will not be any interference or
cross-talk.
14. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY
The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined as
“Monopole” and will not cause any adverse impact on adjacent
property or properties in the area. As this is an un-manned facility
and we only maintain the property around once a month, but in the
case of an emergency it would be sooner. There will be no increase
in Vehicular or pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas,
emissions of any order, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or
glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; contribution in a
measurable way to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the
lowering of property values, Per Sections 1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 &
1202.6.
15. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING.
The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge proposed site location
including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave.
East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the
proposed site location and / or the road that Vertical Bridge will need
to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility
Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be
endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed
site location and as part of the road is already existing there will be a
limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the dedicated 30’
Access& Utility Easement.
16. SEARCH RING AREA (Exhaustive Search)
So you can understand the limited space for setbacks
requirements, and parcels with all the washes, which would not
work as to flood out the site.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the
neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and
coordinates each site with the needs for both the neighborhoods, county
(jurisdictions), and the carriers.
<image003.png>
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the
neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and
coordinates each site with the needs for both the neighborhoods, county
(jurisdictions), and the carriers, which I explained in both the community
meeting and now in writing.
Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular
Telecommunications sites, but I really do appreciate your concerns, and
hope I have reiterated in writing now from the discussion we had at the
community meeting.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
<image001.png>
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
<Cellsites_public_health_final-2021.pdf>
<Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021.pdf>
<Device Comparison.pdf>
<911Wireless2021.pdf>
<5G-The-Next-Generation-of-Wireless-Services-1.pdf>
From:
Janet Mendenhall
To:
Gary Cassel
Cc:
Sean Watkins (PND); Morris Michelson
Subject:
Re: AZ-5068- Z2021044 Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
Date:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 7:52:22 PM
Gary,
Thanks for your response. I would recommend then that you place this tower at the Fire station and not at the
proposed location. The tower extends well above the 10 foot wall. The proposed site is on higher ground than the
elevation of my property. It is taller than the electrical poles that run along 7th Avenue. It is another visual
disruption I would prefer not to see.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:19 PM, Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ms. Mendenhall:
> GOOD AFTERNOON
> Thank you so much for writing the County on your concerns as to the proposed Vertical Bridge
Telecommunication site.
>
> I wanted to write you directly if you did not mind, as to answering your concerns directly, and also included the
County Planner.
>
> I would like to respond to your concerns as to the NOISE coming from the Vertical Bridge site and its location.
> There is no noise coming from the site itself, as the cabinetry built for the radio equipment is built to compensate
for any noise within the cabinets, and again the radios don't make noise. Also there is a 10' wall around all the
equipment including the pole, which if there were any noise it would be blocked from the walls around the
equipment cabinets.
>
> Furthermore, there is already and has been a Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station just
down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site location less than 2400' away, and has been there for
many years.
>
> Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular Telecommunications sites, but really do appreciate
your concerns.
>
> Gary Cassel
> Site Acquisition Specialist
> Clear Blue Services
> O: 602.762.8809
> E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
>
> Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
>
> www.clearblueservices.com
> 3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
> Phoenix, Arizona 85040
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:58 AM
> To: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
> Subject: FW: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> Good morning Gary,
> FYI...
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sean Watkins
> Planner
> Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
> 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> Desk: 602-506-8150
> sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
> P&D is now 100% digital.
> Find information on our new permit process here:
> https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Watkins (PND)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:57 AM
> To: Janet Mendenhall <janetmendenhall@gmail.com>
> Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> Hello Ms. Mendenhall,
> Your comment has been added to the project record for consideration by Staff, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sean Watkins
> Planner
> Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
> 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> Desk: 602-506-8150
> sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
> P&D is now 100% digital.
> Find information on our new permit process here:
> https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet Mendenhall <janetmendenhall@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:37 AM
> To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
> Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
> Subject: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> As property owners that would have to view and hear the noise generated by the proposed WCF, my husband and
I are against this installation. Desert Hills is located in an unincorporated area of Maricopa county—no water
service, no sewer, poor internet. We live here because we enjoy the natural surroundings of the area, horse
properties etc. We did not invest in a home here to coexist with a T-mobile cell tower that will serve to be an
eyesore to our neighborhood.
>
> We vote NO! Thank you.
>
> Janet Mendenhall
> 38860 N 7th Avenue
> Phoenix 85086
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From:
Janet Mendenhall
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
Subject:
Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
Date:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:37:07 AM
As property owners that would have to view and hear the noise generated by the proposed WCF, my husband and I
are against this installation. Desert Hills is located in an unincorporated area of Maricopa county—no water service,
no sewer, poor internet. We live here because we enjoy the natural surroundings of the area, horse properties etc.
We did not invest in a home here to coexist with a T-mobile cell tower that will serve to be an eyesore to our
neighborhood.
We vote NO! Thank you.
Janet Mendenhall
38860 N 7th Avenue
Phoenix 85086
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Lisa Paffrath
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
FIRENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Subject:
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Friday, June 4, 2021 2:08:47 PM
Sean,
My name is Lisa Paffrath and this email is to inform you that we are not in support of the
proposed T-Mobile site across from our home. We are asking that you deny the SUP
referenced in the subject line of this email. Our parcel number is : 211-73-135. Our address
is: 520 W Desert Hills Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85086.
Thank you,
Lisa Paffrath
602-418-6301
From:
Jessica Johnson
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); alrakofsky@gmail.com
Subject:
[POSITIVE SPAM]5G tower in Desert Hills
Date:
Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:33:28 AM
Sean, the meeting last night regarding the 5G tower proposed to go up near residents in Desert
Hills, was an absolute disaster. Our voices deserve to be heard. Gary beat around the bush on
every issue brought before him. Maybe we could get a meeting with someone who can, or will
address our concerns. There is a definite health risk to the public, not to mention property
values. This concerns us all. Not just the parties that stand to gain the most money. I will be
emailing Debbie Leskos office regarding this matter, as well as the rest of Legislative District
1. This matter will not be swept under the rug easily. I would Greatly appreciate a response on
this matter. In the meantime I will continue enlightening the residents of desert hills, and
emailing my representatives.
Sincerely, Jessica Johnson
Committeeman- Legislative District 1
From:
Mary Huels
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
AZ-5068special use permit#Z2021044
Date:
Saturday, June 5, 2021 6:11:01 PM
Hello,
We do not want the SUP in the location that was picked for the 80 foot tower for T-Mobile.
Regards:
Pat and Mary Huels
39306 N 7th Ave
Parcel #211-50-344
Sent from my iPhone
From:
David Packman
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Proposed Cell Tower - SUP 2021044
Date:
Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:03:58 PM
Sean,
Although we attended the meeting held by Gary Cassel on June 1, 2021. Many of the
concerns the attendees had were not answered, specifically if this cell tower was going to be
placed on the property at North 3rd Ave and Desert Hills Drive.
Our major concerns regarding this proposed development are as follows:
1. Is this a done deal? What can be done to stop it?
2. Zoning changes to accommodate this tower, changing from R-43 to something else,
especially if it becomes a commercially zoned property, setting a precedence for other
towers to be put in a primarily residential area.
3. Esthetics - the proposed tower is planned to be 80 feet in height. The APS poles are
generally no more than 60 feet in height. The exterior of the pole is not planned to
match the APS poles should it be placed.
4. Is it safe? - what studies have been done to ensure there are no unseen damages to
human life, animals or plants based on the RF or other electrical emissions? None were
provided at the meeting. But it was said there was a 2-year study done and 'turned in'.
Gary did not know to whom the study was 'turned into to' or how to get a copy of this
study.
5. Light pollution from maintenance or security activities
6. Impact to Property values?
7. Why wouldn't this cell tower be put on State Land instead of residential land?
Above all, we are asking you to NOT TO APPROVE THIS SUP
Sincerely, concerned residents of Desert Hills
David & Pamela Packman
From:
Monte Mlekush
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
New cell tower at Desert Hill and 3rd Ave
Date:
Friday, June 4, 2021 3:16:31 PM
Mr. Watkins,
This e-mail is to voice my concerns about having a new cell tower near me. I live at Desert Hills and
7th Ave. First of all, considering that we are surrounded by very high hills in every direction around
us, why does it need to be built this near the people who live here? And it doesn’t matter how pretty
the structure is made, the noise and light contamination will be considerable.
Thank you your consideration,
Monte Mlekush
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:
Vivian Decker
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
SUP - Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:59:53 PM
My Husband and I are concerned neighbors living in the area of the proposed
wireless communication facility. We feel the need to voice our concerns over this
project.
We understand growth, we have seen lots of it here in beautiful Desert Hills in
the 12 years we have lived here.
The County has standards in place when it comes to zoning that protects existing
communities such as ours.
Standards such as, setback from property lines and array diameters.
If a special use permit is given for this project it can and may very well set a
new precedent for the next WCF in our community.
We are asking you to not approve this SUP.
If approve please implement items that have been suggested;
pole height
matching the existing APS poles in the area, for a uniform look
height of attenuation walls
shaded lighting within the compound
Respectfully,
Harry Decker
Vivian Decker
From:
Renee Hunter
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Subject:
Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:08:27 PM
6-2-2021
To: Sean Watkins, The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission, & The
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Cc. Gary Cassel
This letter is in regard to the Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the Proposed
T-Mobil Cell Phone Tower at the following address:
39212 N. 3rd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086 locations
Maricopa County
Accessors Parcel # 211-23-014F
I would like to oppose the Special Use Permit and oppose the cell phone tower
being built.
First, it will be an eyesore! I don’t want to look out my front window at an 80 foot cell
phone tower! I also do not want to have any excess lighting from the tower, nor do I
want to listen to any excess noise being made from the cell tower or things used to
run it. It is bad enough that I already have to listen to the water trucks go back and
forth down Desert Hills Road all day long and hear them engine break all too often! I
moved out here to get away from the lights and the noise of the city. I do not want
any additional lights or noise added! I do not want it built here!
Second, I am concerned that it is going to drastically reduce our resale value of our
home & the other homes in the surrounding area. No one is going to want purchase
a house across the street from and/or look right out the front window at an 80 foot cell
tower! For this reason, I do not want it built here!
Third, I am concerned for my health and the health of my neighbors. I do not believe
that there has been enough long term testing on the health risks of living so close to a
cell phone tower. I do believe that there will be increased health risks & issues from a
cell phone tower being so close, therefore, I do not want it built here!
Fourth, I am concerned that there will be interference if a new cell phone tower is built
with my current cell phone service through Verizon. I am also concerned it will
interfere with my Digital Television reception. I do not want it built here!
In closing, I would just like to say again that I oppose the special use permit and I
oppose the cell phone tower being built!
Please keep me informed of the dates to any upcoming dates, times and the locations
of meetings regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Renee Hunter
From:
ina Mlekush
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
New Proposed Cell Tower in Desert Hills
Date:
Friday, June 4, 2021 3:21:11 PM
Sean Watkins,
I am a resident at Desert Hills Drive and 7th Ave. The proposed Tower is to be constructed near 3rd
Ave and Desert Hills Drive.
It is not acceptable to put a tower in a residential neighborhood when there are hills that are above
and away from housing.
An 80’ cell tower, 15’ higher then any of the APS poles with a broad reaching impact of many miles
to penetrate the air space we live in.
I purposely chose to live in Desert Hills, with no street lights, minimal contamination of electrical
energy and no 5g in the area.
Your proposed WCF requires cooling, using A/C units which generate a constant noise factor. Put this
noise pollution on a local mountain top. Not where it will infiltrate into our brain thru the waves
that penetrate thru all matter, meaning our homes and cellular structure.
I Angry my land and home is being infiltrated with this technology which has been proven to be
harmful.
Ina
Ina Mlekush “ Speaks Simply” MFCC
Marriage, Relationship Counselor- Traditional & Alternative
Sex Counselor ASSECT Member
623 465-9151
Ina@TalktoIna.com
Ina@SpiritualSexuality.com
From:
Rick Kreutzberger
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
objection to cellular T mobile cell tower
Date:
Saturday, June 5, 2021 12:09:03 PM
Az-5068-special use permit case# Z2021044
We live across the road from the proposed location.
This is not only ugly but adds unnecessary lights besides not being good for our health and the
value of our property..
My wife has Multiple Sclerosis and the idea of having this tower so close to where we live is
devastating!!
Deny SUP
Choose a non residential location!!!!!
Our parcel # is 211-73-058-D
Fredrick Kreutzberger
Alice Felice
39426 N 4th Ave Phoenix Arizona
85086
From:
Susie Marsman
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
deny SUP. Cell Tower
Date:
Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:38:51 PM
To whom it may concern. My name is Susan Marsman. I live and own 39512 N. 4th
Ave. Parcel #211-73-058B. I’m opposed to the structure that is supposed to go in on
Desert Hills Dr
it will not only put all around it in danger, it will signicanty dropt the value of our
properties! not to mention the eyesore of this monstrosity. Thank you for your time.
Susan Marsman
From:
NRDHCA & DMAAA
To:
Gary Cassel
Subject:
Your Input is Welcome
Date:
Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:06:44 PM
Gary, here is the email I sent to over 540 names. I had 34% open and no phone calls. The Board had no
objection to the SUP.
Public Comment
Gary Cassel of Clear Blue Services has asked the Dept. of Planning and Development
for additional public comment on the proposed cell site to be located on the south side
of Desert Hills on 3rd Ave (SUP Z2021044). Mr. Cassel has requested additional public
comment over and above the P&Z requirements. If you would like to ask questions
please contact Mr. Cassel.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
New River/Desert Hills Community Association | PO Box 75068, New River, AZ 85087-1000
Unsubscribe {recipient's email}
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by etaylor855@gmail.com
THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY.
This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a draft message. If you believe you have received
the message in error, please contact the author by replying to this message. Constant Contact takes reports of
abuse very seriously. If you wish to report abuse, please forward this message to abuse@constantcontact.com.
From:
Gary Cassel
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
"Morris Michelson"
Subject:
FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY MEETING-NRDHCA
Date:
Sunday, June 27, 2021 12:03:41 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Your Input is Welcome.msg
Hey Sean:
Please see the NRDHCA & DMAAA PUBLIC NOTICE sent out to all the New River Community to Invite them
to call me if there any concerns!
NO ONE CALLED
As you can see the NRDHCA & DMAAA BOARD had no objection to the SUP.
I THINK THIS TELLS THE STORY
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 4:05 PM
To: estentinc ent <etaylor@estentinc.com>; etaylor855@gmail.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>; Steven
DeJonge <stevendejonge@clearblueservices.com>
Subject: FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Hey Ed:
Thank you so much for your EXTRA effort in sending out to the 540 addresses in the New River Community,
and Thank the NRDHCA BOARD for their consideration and their vote of NO OBJECTION to the Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile Telecommunication Project;
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044!
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: estentinc ent <etaylor@estentinc.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:14 PM
To: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Subject: Emails Sent
I sent you a copy of the notice I sent out Wednesday to over 540 addresses. It has a 34% open rate
and I have had no phone calls. We discussed the SUP at the Board meeting and there were no
objections. Thank you for the extra effort but I see no need for any more meetings. Continued
success with your project and let me know if you need any other assistance.
Thank you for the opportunity
Ed Taylor, President
NRDHCA
602-739-1235 cell
..."You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 6:49 PM
To: etaylor855@gmail.com; etaylor855@gmail.com; behomes@q.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Hey Ed:
As per our Great conversation about 2 weeks ago you were going to send out as the Board President for
NRDHCA the invitation for the Board meeting t be held on 6/24/21, and I believe you were going to mention
if there were any concern Association Members as to the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Telecom site off of
Desert Hill Dr and 3rd Ave.
I believe from our conversation, you were going to see what if there were concerns and if you found enough
response to your asking the question, that there maybe a reason for another New River Community
Meeting as we already had one on 6/1/21 at the Choice Church. The attendees were from a list provided by
Alan Muller.
The reason why I am asking is if you feel that the same people attending your Board Meeting or writing with
their concerns from what you can tell are some of the same people as attended the first meeting, which
means they are from the same list provided by Alan Muller, who we know also is a member of the NRDHCA,
then there may not be a reason to have a 2nd Community Meeting??
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IMPORTANT TO ME
We also discussed that you were going to ask the New River Board for their consideration on the Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile project.
Please confirm if the Board did meet on 6/24/21, and their consideration for this project??
Please note there is a real need for a T-Mobile presents in the New River Community as there is only one
carrier right now that has any kind of presents, and you and I both know that the FCC, FAA and all the
carriers from the Federal Law stand point are required to have a presents everywhere in the US including
New River!
Please let me know that there was a Board Meeting and the consideration they are giving to Vertical Bridge
/ T-Mobile Telecom site, and also if you feel like there is a need for a 2nd New River Community Meeting?
PLEASE ADVISE, as the County has a deadline for me to let them what the Board status is on both a 2nd
meeting potential and consideration from the Board.
Thank you and the NRDHCA Board for consideration in this matter!
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:27 AM
To: behomes@gmail.com; behomes@g.com; etaylor855@gmail.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Dear Ed:
I am writing the NRDHCA to see if there is a way to have a Community Meeting with the Community as per
the request of Maricopa County on the Special Use Permit that Vertical Bridge is has submitted for an 80’
monopole (Brown in Color) within an 30’ x 35’ walled in compound which is 10’ in height painted and
textured BROWN located at the APN 211-23-014F, (Reid Ranch), off 3rd Ave & Desert Hills Dr. about 450’
away from the residential community in that area.
As to the history of the County Submittal, there has already been a Community Meeting held on 6/1/21, at
the Crossroads Church in New River, and was provided a list of the Community in opposition from Alan
Muller.
At that meeting you will see below in this email what was discussed and the answers that were given,
except for the question “How do we stop this from going forward”?, which I told all of the attendees that it
is not up to one person it is the County and the Federal Communications System (FCC).
Vertical Bridge is requesting another Community Meeting requested by the County to make sure VB has
communicated to as much of the Community as to what is being submitted to the County by Vertical Bridge.
The only area of concern is that Vertical Bridge (as they have no obligation by the county for a Community
Meeting) wants to 1. To make sure VB does the best they can to inform the parcel owners around the site
and its location, 2. That VB is speaking to the community members, BUT now that there has been one
Community Meeting with over 65 parcel owners sent out invitations from the list provided by Alan Muller,
that there is a reason for another meeting with new attendees present? If that makes sense?
If the NRDHCA is interested in allowing Vertical Bridge to have another Community Meeting, and you think
the list that you could provide would be a different list than what was provided by Alan Muller with address
and maybe even email address (does not have to have emails), I can try to coordinate another Community
Meeting. Please understand the Community I speak of is the community that is directly affected and in the
vicinity of the submitted application.
I am looking forward to working with you, and if it is possible to have this meeting BEFORE the Planning and
Zoning Commission – Thursday, July 8, 2021, 9:30 a.m. THAT WOULD BE GREAT!
If your offices have room we can have it there, or I can ask again the Crossroads Church Pastor if he would
consider a 2nd meeting place?
The key to having this meeting is if the County, you, and I think we are all talking to the same group of
parcel ownership within the affected area of the location of the submitted VB application.
YOUR THOUGHTS
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 1:11 PM
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com; Renee Hunter <renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>; alrakofsky@gmail.com;
Jessica Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>; Vivian Decker <vrdecker3@gmail.com>;
janetmendenhall@gmail.com; mhuels@msn.com; rogerrayaz@protonnail.com; cj4fun51@aol.com;
marberry2014@outlook.com; charryzip@gmail.com; bats_az@hotmail.com; marchelle-
johnstone@gmail.com; amordarakotsk@gmail.comy; cabrio1937@gmail.com; fakbeye3@yahoo.com;
azfirecop@gmail.com; Lisa Paffrath <tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>; Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>; 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON
6/1/21
Hey All:
As I promised I would do, and am sending you the hearing dates
Planning and Zoning Commission – Thursday, July 8, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
Board of Supervisors – Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
POSTING IS BEING UPDATED
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 4:02 PM
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com; Renee Hunter <renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>; alrakofsky@gmail.com;
Jessica Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>; Vivian Decker <vrdecker3@gmail.com>;
janetmendenhall@gmail.com; mhuels@msn.com; rogerrayaz@protonnail.com; cj4fun51@aol.com;
marberry2014@outlook.com; charryzip@gmail.com; bats_az@hotmail.com; marchelle-
johnstone@gmail.com; amordarakotsk@gmail.comy; cabrio1937@gmail.com; fakbeye3@yahoo.com;
azfirecop@gmail.com; Lisa Paffrath <tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>; Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON
6/1/21
TO ALL THAT ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON 6/1/21
GOOD AFTERNOON
Thank you so much to all of you for your discussions and concerns as to the proposed Vertical Bridge
Telecommunication site at the community meeting held on 6/1/21.
I wanted to write you directly if you don’t mind, as I really do care and want all of you to be as much
informed as possible especially as to answer to your concerns directly that you brought up, and also in
writing so everyone is clear on what was asked and the answers that were given at the meeting. , and I am
also including the County Planner.
There is no update yet as to the dates for any of the hearings sorry to say.
I did not prioritize the concerns, but wanted to answer I believe every concern we discussed at the
community meeting.
1. NOISE
There is very little or No noise as the individual cabinets are internally cooled within, and the
cabinets holding the radios are built to allow for no noise or the decibels of any noise would be
blocked by the compound walls height, as mitigated to 10’ and not the initial 8’ that was applied for.
As the walled in compound walls are now proposed to be 10’ tall, and if there were any noise it
would be blocked by the 10’ wall.
2. LOCATION
I know you are concerned with the location of the site, and want you to know that after considering
over 13 different property owners in a .5 mile radius of the proposed site, because of washes and
limited space along with ownership considerations, Vertical Bridge thought the site needed to be as
far away from the residences as possible, and still stay within the T-Mobile required search area. As
there are no residences anywhere in the vicinity of the site location , as the nearest home is over
400’+ to the East (2) parcels East, and the WCF site build located in the Northwest Center of the
existing parcel where the setbacks to the nearest ROW’s are over 350’+ to Desert Hills Rd. with
residences even further, and over 500’+ to 7th Ave, where the site is surrounded by existing APS
Electrical poles, the site location was the furthest we could be away from the residences. The real
challenge was to find a parcel where the WASHES on the property did not conflict with the location
as the water rises and could wipe out the whole site!!
3. SET BACKS
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the zoning where
the site is proposed and around the site which is allowed by the county is West RU-43 and existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills
Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills Dr., then the residences on the
other side North. South is RU-43 and Arizona State Land 250’-3”, East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from
site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, and
then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over 501’ West.
4. FIRE STATION & SURROUNDING PARCELS
The fire station (I tried to locate the site at the tower at the fire station and was DENIED due to no room
for equipment space and no room on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is
environmentally off limits to any building) with their own tower mast (which is way over 2400’ away
West) from (VB) proposed site location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ radius area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the
VB request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile
mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are
many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area. The existing right of way power
poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio
Frequency Engineers which are found does not work for the RF objectives, as they are too close to
residences and not tall enough or strong enough to incorporate the required antennas. Furthermore,
there is already and has been a Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station just
down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site location less than 2400' away, and has
been there for many years.
5. PROPERTY VALUES
I think you will find the attachment on PROPERTY VALUES and the affect as to the proposed site and
its location very informative as to (Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021). You will note that the FCC
and all the carriers have researched and found that 75% of phones used by the public are wireless
phones, as they allow the freedom to communicate where ever they are! When someone wants to
buy property these days they actually consider if their phones will work so as to communicate with
work and loved ones, data transfer, streaming live and TV events. T-Mobile actually has very poor
and in some cases there is no coverage in the area where the site is proposed.
6. HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER REQUIRED BY VERTICAL BRIDGE, T-MOBILE AND THIER RADIO
FREQUENCY ENGINEERS.
Both Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile are requiring the height of the proposed tower to be at 80’. The
reason is to directly communicate uninterrupted with the existing T-Mobile site locations in the
vicinity. This requirement is so as to accomplish a system build or the 5G Network and not just a
stand-alone towers where the 4G network use to be. This height of 80’ (where the antennas will be
at) will allow T-Mobiles network to accomplish the even flow of radio frequency, which will stop the
poor coverage, block calls, or capability of calls in or out, including the 911 Emergency calls, both in
or out.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and personal
communications service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination of antenna
towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a "cellular or PCS cell site" or "base
station." Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high Antennas are
usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to transmit signals to mobile
units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units.
The Carrier considers the use of each telecom site to be interconnected with the other existing
carrier sites, as that is the whole premise for the carriers system build, and now that there are
radios for all the carriers including T-Mobile to the 5G Network it is imperative that each site
coordinates and interconnects as 5G is a system build, and not like what you are used to from
before, which allows the actual radio frequency to be less than 4G as it blends with the existing
towers.
7. 911-EMERGENCY CALLS
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are registered with the Federal
Communication Commission and part of the EAS program. 911- EMERGENCY CALLS. Each cell tower
is mandated as part of the EAS national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable
television systems, wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers,
and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the
President to address the American public during a national emergency. The system also may be
used by state and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER
alerts and weather information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction with Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
Every one of these Agencies require as part of the FCC Licensing to each carrier that they MUST be
able to broadcast their radio frequencies incorporating these systems as part of their obligation to
have the license. So when there is very little coverage or in this site location there is the potential of
no coverage, where there is the possibility of a 911-call not going through or a Federal Emergency
broadcast that is why Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile really needs the site to bridge the gap of NO
Coverage in this area between the existing T-Mobile sites, which the T-Mobile RF Engineers are
requiring their antennas to be at 80’ to accomplish the most important RF coverage objectives,
which is to link up with the existing sites.
8. FEDERAL GUIDELINES
From the FCC.
Decision May Not Be Based on or Regulate Radio Frequency Emissions Cities may not
regulate placement, construction of modification of WCFs based on radio frequency (“RF”)
emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with FCC RF emissions regulations.
Cities may also not attempt to regulate the operation of WCFs based on these 8 City of Palos Verdes
Estates, 583 F.3d at 725; City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 994, citing, Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 580 [stating
that the zoning board may consider “other valid public goals such as safety and aesthetics”]; T-
Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County (10th Cir. 2008) 546 F.3d 1299, 1312
[noting that “aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”]; Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town
of Oyster Bay (2d Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490, 494 [recognizing that “aesthetic concerns can be a valid
basis for zoning decisions”]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D. Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d
1251, 1255.
The FCC and Local and State Advisory Committee of the FCC published a guide for local officials to
help determine whether a facility complies with FCC standards. It can be found online at
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety.
9. Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself or in
combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC height
restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away from potential exposure. To that end, no
communication facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities that exceed
the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure to RF fields. Certification that a facility meets
this standard is required. A copy of the certification from the FCC shall be submitted to the city.
10. LIGHTING
Please see the actual lighting specification on the actual site plans the were submitted to the
County. This will show that the lighting for the site is going to be located below the top of the 10’
wall and will be shaded to only light the lease space area inside the compound where both the pole
and the equipment will be located to work on in the case of an emergency.
11. COLOR OF THE POLE AND COMPOUND WALLS & ASTHETICS
The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical aesthetics of the surrounding area
which includes existing APS poles, and also the raw land between the ROW’s which is owned by Arizona
State Land.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with the area that has many other like
electrical poles which are the same color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to
reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS:
Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA to be painted a BROWN
(APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible, use
materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting
and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
12. NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication sites. (Please See attachment
Cellsites_public_health_final-2021), As we discussed at the community meeting, the radio frequency
waves have been researched since the 1950’s when TV broadcasting off South Mountain was built, and
the wireless telephones for all the carriers have been existence since the late 1980’s, where everyone in
the U.S. and your area has been living and working within all of these wireless frequencies on a constant
basis. This includes the existing wireless carrier site locations that are all around you now, including the
fire station, the schools, and churches in your immediate area!
13. NO INTERFEARANCE WITH EXISTING TELEPHONES, TV, OR CABLE
There will be NO interference if a new cell phone tower is built with any current cell phone service
through any other carrier. There will not be any interference with any Digital Television reception. The
FCC sells individual licenses for specific radio frequencies to each carrier or wireless companies so there
will not be any interference or cross-talk.
14. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY
The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined as “Monopole” and will not cause any
adverse impact on adjacent property or properties in the area. As this is an un-manned facility and we
only maintain the property around once a month, but in the case of an emergency it would be sooner.
There will be no increase in Vehicular or pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas, emissions of any
order, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions;
contribution in a measurable way to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the lowering of
property values, Per Sections 1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 & 1202.6.
15. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING.
The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge proposed site location including compound and building the
road to the site from N 3rd Ave. East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and / or the road
that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility Easement on
all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the
parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as part of the road
is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the dedicated 30’
Access& Utility Easement.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and coordinates each site with the needs for
both the neighborhoods, county (jurisdictions), and the carriers.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and coordinates each site with the needs for
both the neighborhoods, county (jurisdictions), and the carriers, which I explained in both the community
meeting and now in writing.
Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular Telecommunications sites, but I really do
appreciate your concerns, and hope I have reiterated in writing now from the discussion we had at the
community meeting.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
N 4th
Ave
N3rd
Ave
Desert Hills Dr
211
23
013
211
23
012
211
23
316
211
23
014F
211
23
014E
211
23
014D
301 W
. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
80
0
80
40
Feet
O
pposition and Support
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Supporting Parcel
BusinessPND.GIS.casem
ap
Opposition Parcel
All Opposition Parcels
300' Buffer Selection
300' Buffer Interior
Eligible parcels: 5
Supporting parcels: 0
Opposition parcels: 0
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0
Opposition parcels sq ft: 0
Subject parcels sq ft: 72,545.91
All area inside the 300' buffer:
685,063.05
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW
and excluded parcels: 609,819.16
No-response parcels sq ft: 609,819.16
Super M
ajority opposed parcel acres:
0%
Super M
ajority opposed parcel num
ber:
0%
7th St
NewRive
r
Rd
Desert Hills Dr
Joy Ranch Rd
7th
A
ve
A
nthe
m
W
y
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
680
0
680
340
Feet
Local Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
107th Ave
Cam
elback Rd
Jom
ax Rd
83rd
Ave
W
estw
ing
Pkw
y
A
lm
aSch
oolPkw
y
Jom
ax Rd
CarefreeHw
y
Joy Ranch Rd
7th St
24th St
32n
d
S
t
Pio
n
eer
R
d
Ant
h
e
m
W
y
Dove
Valley
R
d
Honda
BowRd
19th Ave
2
7
th
A
v
e
Cloud Rd
Trail Head
C
a
ve
C
reek
P
k
w
y
Ne
w
Ri
v
e
rRd
Dedic
a
ti
o
n
T
r
B
lack
M
ou
ntai
n
P
k
w
y
40th St
O
livin
e
Ave
16thSt
C
ir
c
leM
ountainRd
M
eridi
anD
r
F
r
eedom
W
y
Dai
sy
M
ount
a
inDr
3
2
n
d
A
v
e
N
ort
h
V
a
lley
P
k
w
y
G
a
vi
la
n
P
eak
P
k
w
y
303
17
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
4,000
0
4,000
2,000
Feet
All Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
Planning and Development Department
DATE:
July 8, 2021
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Sean Watkins, Planner
SUBJECT:
Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge/T-Mobile AZ-5068
Agenda Item: 7
Since the publishing of the staff report for the above case, staff received 2 statements of
opposition to the case from 3 area residents (1 email and 1 letter). The opposition
comments are attached to this handout.
The “Opposition and Support” Super Majority map (and 2 related maps) included in the
staff report have been revised to reflect both of the new opposition comments. One of
the new opposition comments is from a property within 300 ft. of the subject property.
The revised maps (3) are also attached to this handout.
Attachments:
Two new statements of opposition (2 pages)
Revised opposition and support maps (3 pages)
From:
Amanda Rakofsky
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:18:24 PM
Dear Sean -
This email represents Amanda and Michael Rakofsky at 39212 N 3rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ
85086 Parcel # 211-23-014E
We are formally submitting our request to DENY this SUP.
We live barely 300 feet from where this will be constructed and having an 80 pole (15 feet
taller than all the other utility poles) will create an eyesore. With the unknown risks of a 5G
tower this is very concerning; especially having the extra 15 feet will allow the lessee to agree
to put other carriers on the tower.
The owner of the parcel that is being put on does not even live in the area, he rents to two
tenants. The homes they rent of the property owner are within approximately 150 of said
tower.
Sincerely!
Amanda and Michael Rakofsky
6025107991
To: Rachel Applegate, The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission, & The Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors
This letter is regarding the Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the Proposed T-Mobil Cell
Phone Tower at the following address:
39212 N. 3rd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086 locations
Maricopa County
Accessors Parcel # 211-23-014F
I would like to oppose the Special Use Permit and oppose the cell phone tower being built.
First, it will be an eyesore! I don’t want to look out my front window at an 80 foot cell phone
tower! I already have to look at the 65 foot tall APS poles out the window. I do not want to have
any excess lighting from the tower, nor do I want to listen to any excess noise being made from
the cell tower or things used to run it. I already have to listen to the water trucks go back and
forth down Desert Hills Road all day long and hear them engine break all too often! I moved out
here to get away from the lights, the noise and the sights of the city. I do not want any additional
lights, noise, or an even taller pole added! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell
phone tower!
Second, I am concerned that it is going to drastically reduce our resale value of our home & the
other homes in the surrounding area. No one is going to want purchase a house across the
street from and/or look right out the front window at an 80 foot cell tower! For this reason, I
do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell phone tower!
Third, I am concerned for my health and the health of my neighbors. I do not believe that there
has been enough long term testing on the health risks of living so close to a 5G cell phone
tower. I do believe that there will be increased health risks & issues from a cell phone tower
being so close, therefore, I do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the
cell phone tower!
Fourth, I am concerned that there will be interference if a new cell phone tower is built with my
current cell phone service through Verizon. I am also concerned it will interfere with my Digital
Television reception. I do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell
phone tower!
In closing, I would just like to say again that I OPPOSE the special use permit and I OPPOSE
the cell phone tower being built!
Sincerely,
Renee Hunter
39504 N. 4th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel number 211-73-058A
N 4th
Ave
N3rd
Ave
Desert Hills Dr
211
23
014E
211
23
014E
211
23
013
211
23
012
211
23
316
211
23
014F
211
23
014D
301 W
. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
80
0
80
40
Feet
O
pposition and Support
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Supporting Parcel
BusinessPND.GIS.casem
ap
Opposition Parcel
All Opposition Parcels
300' Buffer Selection
300' Buffer Interior
Eligible parcels: 5
Supporting parcels: 0
Opposition parcels: 1
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0
Opposition parcels sq ft: 26315.43
Subject parcels sq ft: 72,545.91
All area inside the 300' buffer:
685,063.05
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW
and excluded parcels: 609,819.16
No-response parcels sq ft: 583,503.73
Super M
ajority opposed parcel acres:
4%
Super M
ajority opposed parcel num
ber:
20%
7th St
NewRive
r
Rd
Desert Hills Dr
Joy Ranch Rd
7th
A
ve
A
nthe
m
W
y
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
680
0
680
340
Feet
Local Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
107th Ave
Cam
elback Rd
Jom
ax Rd
83rd
Ave
W
estw
ing
Pkw
y
A
lm
aSch
oolPkw
y
Jom
ax Rd
CarefreeHw
y
Joy Ranch Rd
7th St
24th St
32n
d
S
t
Pio
n
eer
R
d
Ant
h
e
m
W
y
Dove
Valley
R
d
Honda
BowRd
19th Ave
2
7
th
A
v
e
Cloud Rd
Trail Head
C
a
ve
C
reek
P
k
w
y
Ne
w
Ri
v
e
rRd
Dedic
a
ti
o
n
T
r
B
lack
M
ou
ntai
n
P
k
w
y
40th St
O
livin
e
Ave
16thSt
C
ir
c
leM
ountainRd
M
eridi
anD
r
F
r
eedom
W
y
Dai
sy
M
ount
a
inDr
3
2
n
d
A
v
e
N
ort
h
V
a
lley
P
k
w
y
G
a
vi
la
n
P
eak
P
k
w
y
303
17
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
4,000
0
4,000
2,000
Feet
All Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
From:
Jessica Johnson
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); COB Agenda Comments; Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, July 7, 2021 7:36:53 PM
To All Concerned,
It seems this case is being deliberately kept from the public. Making it an online meeting so
that most of the concerned residents won't take the time to figure out how to attend, is a tactic.
Hiding behind old illegal mandates is dispicable of you all. Gary Cassels extensive email was
a beat around the bush sham. It gives no real information and only infuriates the situation
further. Let start and end with #12 in the email.
#12 NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication towers.
My computer is even flagging this debacle! Nice try Gary. But the public is not as stupid as
you think. We can read.
So are you saying we should wait for ten years down the road when all surrounding neighbors
are diagnosed with strange cancers or birth defects? If the towers are so great, why does there
need to be so many? Why do they have to be right next to residents? What is wrong with just
updating the towers on the hill on 7th ave? Other than harming the hikers.
The neighborhood absolutely denies SUP and its unknown side effects. Not to mention
ruining the surrounding neighbors property values.
At the very least the truth needs to be told to all Desert Hills residents. Perhaps mailers?
With actual details, and a fair risk assessment which you clearly cannot provide. I will keep
moving forward with my efforts to inform as many as possible. I implore you all to do the
right thing!
Copying all of LD1, and Congresswoman Lesko.
Jessica Johnson LD1 committeeman
From:
Aileen Godsey
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:39:10 PM
Hi Sean,
I am writing to strongly oppose the special use permit request referenced above.
I believe the 80’ 5G tower will be an eyesore in our community. 7th Avenue is a main corridor
into Desert Hills and we don’t need more unattractive features spoiling our desert
neighborhood.
If the Special Use permit is approved, I ask that the height be limited to 65’ or less and the
contractor be required to use Corten steel for construction.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope you have a nice day.
Ali Godsey
1832 W. Tamar Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85086
480-363-6081
From:
synergstx@aol.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); synergstx@aol.com
Subject:
reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:44:55 PM
Jul 7 2021
from John H Williams, Carol A Williams at 39714 N 3rde Ave, Phoenix AZ 85086 nearby about 1500 feet
north of proposed T Mobile cell antenna tower location. We adamantly oppose this project for following
reasons:
1. other more3 open areas are nearby to the north.
2. we will ne near unknown radiation RF levels emitting from antennas.
3. Tower proposed to be 80 fees high which make3s it visible from our neighborhood.
4. finish is only painy instead of the cortex finish
5. cars on desert hills road will be blasted by RF emission from antennas day and night.
6. sound levels from equipment / housing will be heart by us, our neighbors.
7. We feel this project has been strung on us without much chance to have adequate time to review all
aspects of proposal (radiation, sound, etc.
8 We dont have time to take part the meeting Jul 8 in downtown PHX to intelligently deal with this. PS
looks like we are excluded anyway.
9. Added parts of the plan is to add more antennas, equipment with further impacts (RF, etc)
10 for this we soundly oppose this project as many of our neighbors do !!
John H. Williams, Carol A Williams July 7 2021 PM
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
FW: T-Mobile Tower / Case # Z2021044/ Hearing 7/8/21
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 6:45:09 AM
From: kori zarinegar <kori@mountaincovecare.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 1:18 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: T-Mobile Tower / Case # Z2021044/ Hearing 7/8/21
Hello,
My name is Kori Zarinegar . I am a home owner in Desert Hills . My home is located within the 300
ft vicinity of the proposed 80 ft Tower project .
I never received any mail with notification of this project , nor did my 2 neighbors. This information
has not been properly brought to the communities attention.
I just found out about this , via word of mouth . I am livid that this is being considered. Please do
not allow this hideous 80 foot brown painted tower of metal to go up ! NO ONE in Desert Hills
would be ok with this. I saw the example email that Gary said he sent out to 540 people . It looked
like SPAM . No one would open that. If the subject line said “ 80 Foot Cell Tower going up close to
your home” I guarantee people would open that email and respond as OPPOSED .
I would like to see proof that he sent out paper mail to all the residents within 300 feet . ?
I am not comfortable with the health risks involved with a 5G tower so close to our homes. I would
like to see proof that it will not cause mental and physical health issues in the long term or short .
I read line #7. Regarding Property values are not a basis for project evaluation , rather projects are
evaluated on the basis of their compliance with the code ( which this project is NOT , given the
offset amendment they are requesting) Or the Code which is to achieve a balance of benefits and
costs for the community as a whole.
Property Values Do effect the community as a whole and it will cost our community greatly in health
and financially . NO ONE wants to live next to a high powered Frequency Tower .
PLEASE DO NOT DO APPROVE THIS
Name : Kori Zarinegar Desert Hills Resident
Address 37815 10th Ave
Phone: 480-258-7344
Position : OPPOSED !!
Case # Z2021044
Vertical Bridge / T MObile AZ -5068
Hearing Date : 7/8/2021
Kori Zarinegar
480-258-7344
From:
alice felice
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
SUP Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:00:31 AM
Dear Sir,
My name is Alice Felice and
I live at 39426 N 4th Ave, Desert Hills AZ 85086.
Parcel # 211-73-058-D
I oppose the T-Mobil 5G tower for many reasons.
80 foot metal monstrosity, depreciation of property value and the effect on ones health is a major concern.
I have multiple sclerosis and this is the last thing I need!!
This is a lovely residential neighborhood where people take care of their properties and are kind to each other.
What right has an outsider got to buy a property to put this tower just for his financial gain?? He is not going to
move in and inflict these problems on his life and family but he is willing to do so to this neighborhood with no
concern what so ever.
“I agree with the denial issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission “
Thank you for your time,
Alice Felice
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Amanda Rakofsky
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); COB Agenda Comments
Subject:
SUP Case # Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:11:26 PM
Mr Watkins and Board of Supervisors,
We previously stated our STRONG opposition to this SUP in the July 8th meeting; where it
was unanimously denied! I would like to request a speaking opportunity as well.
I am writing again to ensure we are heard. I believe there were many "intentional missteps" in
communication from the moment Gary Cassel spoke to my husband the day the signs were
placed on our property. All communication with Mr Cassel is tiresome and he talks in circles.
At our June community meeting he was condescending and rude to the 19 of us that were
present. As far as answering any questions - he talked in circles and never answered a single
question.
We live at 39212 N 3rd Ave,Phoenix, AZ 85086; Parcel # 211-23-014E where the first sign
was placed in our ingress/egress. We were not aware or notified by Gary Cassel that this sign
would be placed. We addressed this with Gary and he "gravely" apologized and stated it was
his "oversight" and we should have been notified. The second sign was placed due west of the
first sign on the property where the tower is proposed to be placed. (see attached) This sign
was NOT at all visible to any community members. I proceeded to post the information on
social media and within a couple of days the sign was moved on to Desert Hills Dr between
7th and 3rd Ave. This placement is still ineffective if the purpose is to notify the public. In
my opinion, for the most exposure, the sign should have been placed at 7th Ave and Desert
Hills. I believe the signs were strategically placed. only to satisfy Maricopa County guidelines
and to minimize sightings.
All of the communication from Gary Cassel to the public was minimal at best. He stated that
some 540 emails went to the public with no response; I never received such email and I am
certain my husband and I are near the top of this opposition; mostly because of the way we
were NOT communicated to.
In addition to the UNNECESSARY 80' pole being an eyesore; there will be noise and light
issues. The owner of this property does not live in Desert Hills and has 2 renters on said
property. It is unfortunate that this was not disclosed to us before we closed on our property
(which was purchased from the current owner of the subject lot). Our property values will
decline. We do not know the depth or long term health effects on humans and livestock (which
is prevalent in our area).
For Mr. Cassel to state that an extra 15' of height on the pole will not be noticable is absolutely
absurd. For him not wanting to comply with the Corten Steel and the reasons given are
uneducated. I believe this comes down to money and what he proposes will be much cheaper.
The extra 15' allows Gary and the property owner, Reid Steward of Stewart L&L llc, the
opportunity to put other carriers on the tower, thus making more money. The potential
addition of antennas, I believe, will bring another set of unknown issues - will need more
power, will produce more noise, will produce more light and more radio waves (with unknown
health risks).
We moved our family out here to get out of the "rat race" and live in a residential area NOT A
BUSINESS LOT.
If this gets approved, what kind of precedent will be set for other OUT OF AREA property
owners to engage in business such as this; with no regard to the full time residents in this area.
Michael and Amanda Rakofsky
6025107991
From:
Herb Kwan
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
Cell Tower SUP Z2021044
Date:
Saturday, July 31, 2021 11:01:23 AM
Dear Mr. Watkins,
Thank you so much for the follow-up email dated July 29, 2021 regarding the above referenced subject.
As we indicated in a previous email to you we are residents of the
Desert Hills area and in direct line of this proposed cell tower. The reason we chose this area and our home is
because of the rural-ness and the quality of life represented in this area.
This proposed cell tower will be a blight on the landscape and a total eyesore. At
80 feet tall, this is too much and is more than double the height of all the existing power
poles. The zoning of the area will be changed which will set a precedence for any future developments.
We strongly oppose the development of this proposed project and adamantly agree
with the denial issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission Board of July 8th.
Herb and Barbara Kwan
121 W Fernwood Drive
Parcel # 211-23-016G
Sent from my iPad
Herb Kwan
C: 925-321-2928
From:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
FW: SUP. Cell Tower
Date:
Monday, August 2, 2021 8:23:26 AM
Hi Sean,
This email was received by the Office of the Clerk of the Board in regards to SUP Case# Z2021044. We are
forwarding it to your attention.
Please let us know if we may assist in any way.
Thank you,
Mireya Vargas
Clerk of the Board Assistant
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
301 W Jefferson St., 10th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-7947 Desk
-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Marsman <bertmarsman@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Sean.Watkins@maricopa.go
Cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX <clerkboard@maricopa.gov>
Subject: SUP. Cell Tower
To the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. I am writing to say that I disagree with the proposal of the Cell
Tower to be put up in Dessert Hills AZ. This is a danger to all that live in the area. Also to see the Tower Daily,
would be a eyesore. Not only will it deeply affect the Value of our Properties, I have Neighbors that already suffer
from disabilities and Illnesses. Please don’t allow this OBJECT to interfere with our daily routines. Thank you,
Lambert Marsman.
Parcel Number: 211-73-058B 39512 N. 4Th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85086 Sent from my iPhone
From:
bjsinaz@gmail.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
SUP Case# Z2021044
Date:
Friday, July 23, 2021 10:16:43 AM
Sean,
With regards to the Special Use Permit case# Z2021044 for a proposed 5G cell tower near 7th Ave
and Desert Hills.
I agree with the denial that was issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8th of this
year for the following reasons.
The height and size of the proposed 5G tower will make it an overwhelmingly distracting and visually
unappealing fixture on the landscape.
For residents of this area it will lower property values and reduce the aesthetics of the natural
landscape and views.
Once again I support the denial that was issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Regards,
Bryan Smith
39808 N 3rd Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel Id: 211-73-040-D
To Whom It May Concern:
We agree with the denial of Special Use Permit Case #Z202-1044 and
ask that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors deny the Special Use
Permit for agenda item #12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 .
This tower would be located deep inside a residential area zoned R43
and would be an eyesore to the nearby residents and inconsistent to
the community's rural lifestyle.
Thank you for your consideration.
From:
Jeff Gadd
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Denial of of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 9:46:24 AM
Jeff & Candy Gadd
924 W. Cloud Rd., Desert Hills 85086
Parcel #211 51 034B
Home Phone/Fax 623 582 2782
Cell Phone 602 228 8805
jeffgadd@jeffgadd.com
From:
carolw1995@aol.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
AZ-5068 special permit case #Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, July 21, 2021 10:38:53 AM
July 21, 2021
Good morning,
We learned of this T-Mobile cell phone tower (or is sub-station a better designation) request too late to
watch the meeting. We live on N. 3rd Ave and received no notification of this request even though they
said they sent out 450 letters. My next door neighbor did not receive anything either. I looked for minutes
of the meeting and could not find anything posted.
Could you please advise me of the status of this special permit request?
What was the decision?
Was the decision made final?
Can it be appealed?
If denied, can T-Mobile revise and re-submit their request?
If so, how can I be made aware of their new revision?
Is their special permit going to the county supervisors for a vote, and if so, when will be brought to them?
Thank you for any information you can give me.
Carol Williams
39714 N. 3rd Ave.
PHX, AZ 85086
From:
carolw1995@aol.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
RE: AZ-5068 special permit case #Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 22, 2021 9:29:08 AM
Good morning Sean,
Thanks for checking. The Carefree Hwy/17 tower is the only one I've seen with a large block
enclosure and it appears to be the same height as the other poles. Even though I'm more than
300 ft from the proposed tower , I can see the electric poles from my front windows and door.
I also have a T-Mobile cell phone with no issues.
Hopefully the Supervisors will agree with the Planning Commission and deny it. It doesn't
seem appropriate to have such a massive tower in the middle of a residential area.
Thanks for your information.
Have a wonderful day.
Carol Williams
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 6:28 AM, Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov> wrote:
Good morning Ms. Williams,
You’re very welcome and I’m glad I could provide helpful information.
I believe the cell tower you’re referring to is the one located south of the Carefree HWY, just east
of the I-17 and North Valley PKWY, right? That’s actually City of Phoenix jurisdiction, so I don’t
have any permitting information on the tower that would tell me the height. The other cell
towers I’ve worked on since joining the County have been in remote locations, usually far from
public roads and on top of hills, so not really accessible for getting a feel for the height. Our
project database isn’t set up I a way that responds to a search for cell towers in particular, so I
couldn’t find one to direct you to using a search of our records.
Finally, I scanned around the area using aerial photos and I did find a few towers, but they were
all 60 – 65 ft tall. So, also not good references.
Don’t hesitate to ask if you have any other questions and have a great day!
Sean Watkins
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-506-8150
sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital.
Find information on our new permit process here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
From: carolw1995@aol.com <carolw1995@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068 special permit case #Z2021044
Thank you Sean for responding so quickly with the information on the cell tower request. Do you
know where there's an 80' tower in this area that I could drive by to get an idea of what it would
look like. Is the tower at 17& Carefree Hwy 80'?
Thanks so much for your information. It was very helpful.
Carol Williams
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov> wrote:
Good morning Ms. Williams,
For any issue that’s going before the Planning and Zoning Commission, you can find the
hearing date and materials submitted for the item by going to this web site:
https://www.maricopa.gov/AgendaCenter
Scroll about 2/3rds down the screen to find the Planning and Zoning Commission (PnZ)
Hearing dates by line item. At the right of the line item there is a “Download” button and
that’s where you’ll find the Hearing Agenda (with attendance instructions), Staff Reports and
other attachments for each of the items on the agenda for that date. The minutes are also
posted there, but it takes a while for the minutes to be written up, approved and posted. This
project was on the 7/22/21 agenda and you can still download the materials, although, the
minutes for the 7/22/21 PnZ are not done yet. We have some staffing issues recently, so it
will be at least a week before those minutes are posted.
The PnZ voted 9-0 on 7/22/21 to recommend denial of Z2021044.
The case will be before the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on 8/4/21 with the PnZ
recommendation of denial.
Similar to above, you can see the BOS Hearing Agenda (including attendance instructions),
Staff Report and related materials by going to the “Board of Supervisors” Meetings page,
shown at the very top of the Agenda Center page (the link above). That link takes you here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information
The 8/4 BOS Hearing Agenda and materials are not posted yet, but will be there about 1 week
prior to the hearing (7/28 or so).
The BOS makes the final decision about the Special Use Permit request and that decision will
be effective on 8/4. It can be appealed, but that is extremely unlikely to occur due to the
requirements of the appeal process. If denied by the BOS the case could not be heard again
for 1 year, unless the PnZ determines that there is something substantially different about the
circumstances of the request.
Requests of this kind are subject to notification requirements including: postcard notifications
mailed to properties within 300 ft. of the boundary of the subject property (you’re more than
300 ft. away), people registered as “Interested Parties” to receive notifications of all
developments of this kind within Supervisor District 3 (you’re not an interested party for D3,
but you could be by completing this registration request:
https://www.maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Planning-Development-15/Register-as-
an-Area-of-Interest-Group-fo-184), and the subject property will always be posted with at
least 2 signs as was done in this case (one sign is hard to see because it’s on the subject
parcel, which is required, but the other sign is on Desert Hills Dr.).
I hope this information if helpful.
Sean Watkins
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-506-8150
sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital.
Find information on our new permit process here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
From: carolw1995@aol.com <carolw1995@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 10:39 AM
To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: AZ-5068 special permit case #Z2021044
July 21, 2021
Good morning,
We learned of this T-Mobile cell phone tower (or is sub-station a better designation) request too
late to watch the meeting. We live on N. 3rd Ave and received no notification of this request even
though they said they sent out 450 letters. My next door neighbor did not receive anything either. I
looked for minutes of the meeting and could not find anything posted.
Could you please advise me of the status of this special permit request?
What was the decision?
Was the decision made final?
Can it be appealed?
If denied, can T-Mobile revise and re-submit their request?
If so, how can I be made aware of their new revision?
Is their special permit going to the county supervisors for a vote, and if so, when will be brought to
them?
Thank you for any information you can give me.
Carol Williams
39714 N. 3rd Ave.
PHX, AZ 85086
From:
Maria Ceaglske (COB) on behalf of COB Agenda Comments
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Cc:
COB Agenda Comments
Subject:
Comment Regarding VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:50:02 PM
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office received the below comment regarding:
VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068
Case #: Z2021044
Thank you,
Maria Ceaglske
Maricopa County – Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-3766
From: carolw1995@aol.com <carolw1995@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:40 PM
To: COB Agenda Comments <Agenda.Comments@maricopa.gov>
Cc: Carol Williams <carolw1995@aol.com>
Subject: Special permit use #Z2021044 T-MOBILE cell tower
I agree with the unanimous denial issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission. This is not "just" a
cell tower. This is a massive transmission station in the middle of a rural residential area and is
incompatible with the zoning. To grant permission would set a precedent for this area and other
residential areas.
Carol Williams
39714 N 3rd Ave
Phoenix AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-079
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
RE: Special Permit Use Case #Z2021044
To the Maricopa Board of Supervisors:
I agree with the denial issued for SUP case #Z2021044 for the proposed T-Mobile 5G 80’ cell tower by
the Maricopa Planning and Zoning Commission.
I live approximately .5 miles north of the proposed tower. I disagree with T-Mobile’s stated lack of
coverage. According to the map that was submitted in their request (page 3 of the planning report) the
area in yellow suffers from blocked calls or dropped calls indoors but has full strength coverage outside.
I live within that area and have experienced no blocked or dropped calls in the 4 years we have lived in
our house.
I have a T-Mobile sim card in my mobile phone and our house phone has been converted to T-Mobile
cell coverage with a ZTE converter gadget for the last 4 years. I have had no trouble with my mobile
phone or my house phone system which has an answering machine and 3 phones in 3 different areas of
the house. I can make and receive phone calls with all the phones from every room in my house. I
receive Amber Alerts and Severe Weather alerts. I have upgraded my mobile phone and still have had
no issues with T-Mobile coverage or receiving alerts.
Secondly when I look out my front windows and door I see 4-8 feet of the electric poles on Desert Hill
Rd. The tower will extend this view another 15 feet above that. This is not compatibles with rural
property. I choose to live here for the rural atmosphere, peacefulness and abundance of wildlife. Away
from commercial reminders. I would not have chosen to buy my house had there been a cell tower or
chance of a cell tower staring me in the face. It is zoned rural residential and should stay that way.
I believe this is the first 80’ (plus 4’ lightning rod) tower request in a residential rural area. It is not only
the tower height but also the large 30’x35’x10’ equipment enclosure to consider. It will set a precedent
for other SUP requests.
It appears to be a massive cell tower request in a rural residential area which will increase coverage
over only a small area. And as I stated above, I have excellent T-Mobile coverage in an area that T-
Mobile says is not very good. There are other carriers that provide service to this area.
I strongly urge you to deny Special Permit Case #Z2021044.
Thank you for considering my information.
Carol Williams
39714 N. 3rd Ave
Phoenix AZ 85086
Parcel #211-73-079
From:
Maria Ceaglske (COB) on behalf of COB Agenda Comments
To:
Cindi Palmer; COB Agenda Comments
Cc:
Sean Watkins (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
Speaker Request for Formal Agenda Item 12
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:05:05 AM
Attachments:
Speaker Form for Remote Meetings.pdf
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office received your request to speak on the following item on the
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 formal agenda:
12.
VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068
Case #: Z2021044
If you wish to speak on a public hearing item, please fill out the attached form and return it by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday,
August 3, 2021.
The Board of Supervisors meetings continue to be held remotely in accordance with CDC guidelines
regarding recommendation to limit social gatherings.
You will need to pre-register for the webinar for that meeting. Instructions on how to register for that
meeting will be available on the following website at least 24 hours before the meeting:
https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information
After you register, you will receive a GoToWebinar confirmation email message with instructions on how to
join the meeting.
Thank you,
Maria Ceaglske
Maricopa County – Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-3766
From: Cindi Palmer <cindipalmer8@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:50 AM
To: COB Agenda Comments <Agenda.Comments@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Agenda #12
Please send me a form to fill out concerning the vertical Bridget/T-Mobile AZ 5068 case #Z2021044
I do not wish to speak but would like to register my position in opposition.
Please for to above cindipalmer8@gmail.con
Thank you
Cindi Palmer
From:
USA FENCE
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
REF: Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:18:57 AM
I David Hachey, property owner at 39448 N 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85086.
Parcel # 211-73-115-C
Strongly agree with the denial of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the Planning &
Zoning Commission on 7/8/21 and ask that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors deny the
Special Use Permit agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #:
Z2021044 as well.
Dave Hachey
From:
LILIANA FITZSIMONS
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
SUP Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 29, 2021 9:51:17 AM
To whom it may concern,
CBF Enterprises LLC members Elga L FitzSimons and Conor B. FitzSimons owners of parcel
number 211-23-014D, 39212 3rd Avenue, Phoenix Az, 85086.
We are in full agreement of the DENIAL for the proposed T-Mobil 5G cell tower for the 80
foot located at 7th Avenue and Desert Hills.
We can be reached through email if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Elga and Conor FitzSimons
Members of CBF Enterprises LLC
208-599-1770
From:
Rick Kreutzberger
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
SUP case # Z2021044
Date:
Sunday, July 25, 2021 7:09:12 PM
To the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
my name is Fredrick Kreutzberger my address is 39426 N. 4th Ave Phoenix Arizona 85086
parcel #211-73-058D.
I am in total agreement with the denial issued by the Plannig & Zoning Commisions decision
on July 8 th 2021 . My wife has M.S. and am concerned with the effects of this tower on her
health, besides being a huge eyesore to our community!
Would you honestly want this eyesore in your front yard because someone wants to make a
profit?
Please DENY SUP case # Z2021044
Thank you
Fredrick Kreutzberger
From:
Maria Ceaglske (COB) on behalf of COB Agenda Comments
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Cc:
COB Agenda Comments
Subject:
Comment Regarding VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Monday, August 2, 2021 11:44:10 AM
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office received the below comment regarding:
VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068
Case #: Z2021044
Thank you,
Maria Ceaglske
Maricopa County – Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-3766
From: Rick Kreutzberger <cabrio1937@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 11:35 AM
To: COB Agenda Comments <Agenda.Comments@maricopa.gov>
Subject: special use permit #Z2021044
I live at 39426 N. 4th Ave Phoenix Az 85086 parcel #211-73-058-D I oppose the T-Moblie 80 ft
tower for many reasons. My wife has multiple sclerosis. This is the last thing she needs. What right
does an outsider have to buy a property to put this monstrosity of a tower in our neighborhood just
for his own financial gain? He has already stated that he is not going to live on the property.
I agree with the Denial issued by the Planning and zoning Commission.
Thank you for your time
Fredrick Kreutzberger
From:
Jamie Davis
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Denial of of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:19:39 PM
Good Afternoon,
I agree with the denial of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the Planning & Zoning
Commission on 7/8/21 and ask that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors deny the Special Use
Permit for agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044 as well. This is
very close to my residence (Parcel #211-23-308) and it will be an eye-sore to our neighborhood. We
value being AWAY from the busy hustle of the city, and this is NOT a pleasant addition. I am also
concerned with the possible health issues related to being so close to cell phone towers. We walk dogs
and ride our bikes with kids in this particular area; installing cell phone towers will not be an
improvement!!! I also believe it will lower property values by obstructing mountain and sunset views (the
main reason we will here!).
I appreciate your time,
Jamie Davis
39208 N 2nd Pl, Phoenix, 85086
Parcel #211-23-308
From:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
FW: Special Permit Use Case#Z22021044
Date:
Monday, August 2, 2021 8:15:58 AM
Hi Sean,
This email was received by the Office of the Clerk of the Board in regards to SUP Case#
Z2021044. We are forwarding it to your attention.
Please let us know if we may assist in any way.
Thank you,
Mireya Vargas
Clerk of the Board Assistant
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
301 W Jefferson St., 10th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-7947 Desk
From: synergstx@aol.com <synergstx@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX <clerkboard@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Special Permit Use Case#Z22021044
RE: Special Permit Use Case#Z22021044 July 30 2021
To: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors:
I fully agree with the denial issued by the Maricopa Planning Commission for the SUP case# Z2021044
for the proposed T-Mobile5G 80 foot cell antenna tower facility proposed by T Mobile. Besides the fact
that we already do have good T- Mobile coverage and performance with our T mobile configured cell here
in our residence and nearby. The claim by T Mobile that folks here are getting blocked and/ or dropped
calls is to me incorrect.We still get our weather and other alerts.
The other concern I have as I have 50 years experience in the RF/propagation /link performance areas is
as follows:
We frequently use Desert Hills Road to enter or leave our nearby residence on North 3rd Ave somewhat
less than ½ mile from Desert Hills Road. The large multi antenna tower being 80 feet tall must
simultaneously transmit from all these antennas with a strong aggregate EIRP (Effective Isotropic
Radiated Power) down to folks walking or driving,/bikng, horse back riding on desert Hills road, especially
when going past this proposed facility. With all the antennas radiating at once the aggregate signal
strength (volts / meter) from these I would surmise could be quite high. I do not think this has been looked
at seriously, if at all, now with all the ferver over getting new business for RF (like 5G) based internet
services.
RF emission techniques are beginning to be evident in State Dept employees working in Cuba, and
Russia and Chinese based areas in increasing numbers. We also may be be doing without intention
such similar damage to ourselves. The human brain has been seen to suffer with the State Dept
symptoms observed as the brain is basically an electrical system.
In summary, I very strongly feel this proposal should be summarily rejected as it appears:
1. A rushed PR job pulled by T mobile on the County and the already serviced T Mobile users with no
regard at all to physical hazards to citizens in this area.
2. This large facility is a violation to the rural atmosphere we moved here for
3. T mobile was not correct by stating T Mobile users here were getting blocked or poor performance
John H. Williams
39714 N. 3rd Ave Phoenix AZ 85086
Parcel#211-73-079
Retired engineer /engineering physicist 15 yrs 1965 1980 NASA, 37 yrs West Coast : Lockheed Martin,
General Dynamics, Litton, Aerospace Corp, Allegeny Teledyne Inc, Civil eng. Project Engineer Agoura
Hills CA
From:
Maria Ceaglske (COB) on behalf of COB Agenda Comments
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Cc:
COB Agenda Comments
Subject:
Comment Regarding VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Monday, August 2, 2021 4:18:04 PM
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office received the below comment regarding:
VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068
Case #: Z2021044
Thank you,
Maria Ceaglske
Maricopa County – Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-3766
From: Kaihley Reiner <1knesha@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 4:16 PM
To: COB Agenda Comments <Agenda.Comments@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Case #Z2021044 Vertical Bridge/T-Mobile AZ-5068
To All of those who are deciding on this issue:
My husband, Mike, and myself, beseech thee to oppose the 80-foot cell tower at 7th Ave and Desert
Hills Dr in the N. Phoenix community of Desert Hills.
We have lived here almost 19 years and are NOT in need of more cell towers that will subsequently
affect all the property values in the immediate area. This tower would be a half block from our home
and neighbors! There are beautiful properties and scenery out here that this tower will violate.
Surely there must be some land where there are no homes in the area where a tower of this size
could be placed.
I feel certain that you would not want this going up in your own neighborhoods. No one truly knows
the long-term effects of what these towers can have on young and old alike.
Please please oppose this proposal and protect our communities.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike & Kaihley Reiner
Registered voters in Maricopa County
From:
azfirecop
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
Proposed Cell Tower in Desert Hills
Date:
Monday, July 19, 2021 6:01:06 PM
To The Board of Supervisors,
I am writing in advance of the meeting scheduled for August 4th, 2021 in which there is an
agenda item for a proposed cellular tower in the unincorporated area of the north county
known as Desert Hills. I will be brief and summarize what I said at the meeting on July 8th,
2021 by the Maricopa County P&Z Commission. They voted unanimously to deny the SUP
and echoed the sentiments and concerns of our community. In short, I AM ASKING THAT
YOU ALSO DENY THE REQUESTED CHANGE and all future requests for this site.
The location for this site is less than ideal for several reasons, not the least of which is the rural
homes adjacent to the proposed location. Additionally, the land which surrounds the proposed
location, while currently vacant and State-Owned, was and is still zoned for residential. This
means that eventually the land value for that specific area, and others nearby, will be
diminished. Further, there are currently residents on either side of the proposed site and
others just a few hundred feet away in every direction.
The pole request, at 80' in height, would be the tallest structure north of Carefree Highway.
The current APS power poles are 65'. Our community was forced to change the old wooden
poles with these monstrosities years ago and promised better electrical coverage and service.
That has not come to fruition and in fact, the outages are far worse than they were with the
prior poles, but then I digress. These poles were routed through our community to keep
the Carefree Highway a "Scenic Corridor". Our community does not appreciate the rampant
disregard for our peaceful, quiet, dark skies, and our own scenic beauty.
The company, T-Mobile, would have the public and the Board believe they need the height for
their network but in fact they want to put their equipment at the top of the pole and "sell
space" below to other providers, thus increasing their profits and their costs of the pole
installation. All of this at the detriment, aesthetically and otherwise, to our community. There
is much published about the harmful effects of cellular towers and their proximity to people,
animals and vegetation. Many can and will argue the safety of the cellular traffic via these
towers. The cellular towers which were originally placed at fire stations in L.A. were removed
and denied due to proximal location to sleeping quarters and for the safety of the
personnel inside.
In summary, this tower is an infill for T-Mobile which is not needed in our community. There
are numerous commercial locations available for which they should be seeking out. Their
scare tactics of 911 coverage and such are despicable. Their notification process of the
community was an outright lie and deceptive. Their "Slick-Willy Salesman" would have
everyone believe that he only speaks the truth when he would not give straight answers at the
community meetings.
This is not a precedent the Board needs to set in allowing these entities to trample and
suppress the voices of the community. Prior Supervisor Kunasek made this community a
promise to keep the rural feel and not stifle the community's voices. Our current Supervisor
Gates has continued that promise and I implore you to support the denial.
I am urging you to unanimously vote against this proposal, whether the tower is 80' or cut
down to 65', it needs to be denied.
Respectfully,
Keith Paffrath
azfirecop@gmail.com
520 W. Desert Hills Drive
My property line is approximately 466'NW of the proposed location
From:
Ken Lawless
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
80 foot cell tower @ 7th Avenue and Desert Hills Drive (SUP #Z2021044)
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:35:33 PM
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,
Regarding the Special Use Permit for the 80' Cell Tower by T-Mobil I request you follow the
Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission and deny their application for the permit.
Thank you.
My parcel # = APN 211-50-009J
Ken Lawless
39212 N. 11th Ave
Desert Hills, AZ
Ph: 623.465.1034
Cell: 602.697.6277
email: ken@kandrdesign.com
From:
Kenryu Hayek
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
5G Tower
Date:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:54:13 PM
Kent Hayek
39805 N 3rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel Number 211-73-040-F
Mr Watkins:
I am against the construction of the 5G tower that is being proposed:
I agree with the denial issued for SUP Case #Z2021044 for the proposed
T-Mobil 5G Cell Tower by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Sincerely
Kent Hayek
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living
organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.
Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free
radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the
reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders,
and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well
beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to
both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of
experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more
than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking
into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling
properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures,
certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the
biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed
which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be
based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011.
Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology
Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell
phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and
mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key
finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker
exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.
Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal
studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be
reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we
now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known
human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential
of RFR in the near future.
Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic
review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed
the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency
had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at
this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to
human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific
evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to
exposures at or under the current limits.”
The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first
time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular
technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell
antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave
radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable
of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs,
known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring
exposures.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human
skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have
adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune
system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term
exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g.,
ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we
are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable
evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects
of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have
been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in
certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at
least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These
increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk
in heavy cell phone users.
5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly
over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous
exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may
increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable
evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm,
likely due to oxidative stress.
As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a
cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new
cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?
Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and
medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate
moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government
fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that
protect our health and safety.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health
at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless
radiation
From:
Kevin Palmer
To:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX; Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Opposed to 5G TMobile Cell tower at 7th Ave & Desert Hills
Date:
Saturday, July 31, 2021 10:01:46 PM
I am writing to oppose Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the
5G T-Mobile Cell Tower at 7th Avenue & Desert Hills.
This tower would be in my direct view looking out my kitchen window
and would be an eyesore as well diminishing surrounding
property values. We have no current issues with cell service in our area
so dont see the need for the tower.
I agree with the denial issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission for
the Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the Proposed T-Mobil Cell
Phone Tower.
Thanks for your time in denying a permit for this tower.
Regards, Kevin Palmer
Kevin Palmer
422 W. Desert Hills
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-058C
From:
kimberlywebster7@msn.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
SUP Case # Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 22, 2021 2:50:27 PM
Good afternoon,
My name is Kimberly Penrod. I was writing to say that my husband, Reese Penrod, and I agree
with the denial issued for SUP Case # Z2021044 for the proposed T-Mobil 5G Cell Tower by the
Planning & Zoning Commission. Please do not put that tower in our area. We are on parcel 211-
51-052B and do not want to see 5G here. Please let us know what we can do to not have the
tower here.
Thank you,
Kimberly Penrod
Sent from my iPhone
From:
L R
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:36:17 AM
Mr. Watkins,
I agree with the denial of of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the
Planning & Zoning Commission on 7/8/21 and ask that the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors deny the Special Use Permit for agenda item # 12. VERTICAL
BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044 as well.
Thank you,
Lauren Rawlings
From:
Leslie May
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Denial
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 7:53:45 AM
I agree with the denial of of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the Planning & Zoning
Commission on 7/8/21 and ask that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors deny the Special
Use Permit for agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044 as
well
I am concerned about the health benefits. It is also an eyesore to our community.
Please uphold the denial of this tower in our community.
Leslie Briefman
Desert hills resident.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
email shutterdoctoraz.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
SUP Case # Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 22, 2021 5:24:04 PM
Attn: Sean Watkins & The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
I am writing this e-mail regarding the SUP Case # Z2021044 for the proposed 5G T-Mobile Cell
Phone Tower located near Desert Hills & 7th Avenue.
I strongly agree with the denial issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission for
this SUP (Case # Z2021044) and I ask that the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors deny this SUP as well.
I want to be sure that it is perfectly clear to you and the entire Board that cell phones
work just fine in our area. It's not a dead zone.
There are plenty of cell towers already around, and they are in more appropriate
places. It seems that this is just big business trying to cram in more towers, anywhere
they can, to gain some kind of edge on the competition. It's not needed, and not
wanted by anybody in the community.
It will certainly be detrimental to property values, and be an eyesore that will dominate
the skyline view out my own front window.
For all these concerns, and the concerns of many others in our community, I ask that
you deny the SUP as well.
Thank you for your time.
Lincoln Hunter
39504 N 4th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-058
From:
Lynn H
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
REF: Special Use Permit for agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:15:57 AM
I Lynn Hachey, property owner at 39448 N 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85086.
Parcel # 211-73-115-C
Strongly agree with the denial of Special Use Permit case #Z2021044 issued by the Planning &
Zoning Commission on 7/8/21 and ask that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors deny the
Special Use Permit agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #:
Z2021044 as well.
Lynn Hachey
"Inspirational, May, Know It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves." -
William Shakespeare.
Please consider your environmental responsibility. Before printing this e-
mail message, ask yourself whether you really need a hard copy.
Create your own email signature
From:
David Packman
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Cc:
Pamela Packman
Subject:
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting 8/4
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 9:44:52 AM
Greetings All,
As this meeting comes up tomorrow, we would like to reiterate our position of asking to deny
this SUP proposal for the following reasons:
1. Zoning changes to accommodate this tower, changing from R-43 to something else,
especially if it becomes a commercially zoned property, setting a precedence for other
towers to be put in a primarily residential area.
2. Esthetics - the proposed tower is planned to be 80 feet in height. The APS poles are
generally no more than 60 feet in height. The exterior of the pole is not planned to
match the APS poles should it be placed.
3. Is it safe? - what studies have been done to ensure there are no unseen damages to
human life, animals or plants based on the RF or other electrical emissions? None were
provided at the meeting. But it was said there was a 2-year study done and 'turned in'.
Gary did not know to whom the study was 'turned into to' or how to get a copy of this
study.
4. Light pollution from maintenance or security activities
5. Impact to Property values
6. Tenants on the proposed location have no say in this matter other than leaving
which may result in hardships for them for a host of reasons. The proposed location of
the tower would be right on top of their residence (not sure if this would even be legal)
7. Other options that may be more feasible and not impact the residential community
(yes, we are aware of the noted other attempts)
8. Poor communication of this proposal did not allow the area residents to either know of
the proposed SUP and/or voice their opinion/comments. Although there are pieces of
information that indicated differently, many never received the notices to respond so
the assumption there were no objections is falsely noted
Thank you
David & Pamela Packman
113 W Desert Hills Dr
From:
Paul Wetzel
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
T-Mobil Cell Phone Tower
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:39:55 AM
RE Parcels 211-23-012 & 211-23-13
Paul A. Wetzel and Grace Chapel hereby give notice of their opposition to T-Mobile's application for
approval of an 80 foot cell tower in the area of 7th Ave and Desert Hills. Our opposition stems from
information indicating possible injury to persons within the impacted area..
Respectfully submitted.
Paul A. Wetzel & Grace Chapel
From:
Becky Hayek
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
5G Cell Tower at 7th Ave and Desert Hills
Date:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:49:24 PM
I agree with the denial issued for SUP Case #Z2021044 for the proposed
T-Mobil 5G Cell Tower by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It would be an eye sore and decrease our property value. My biggest concern is over health
issues resulting from 5G.
"Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful
free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the
reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders,
and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well
beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to
both plant and animal life.”
We do not need this or want it in our neighborhood.
Rebecca Hayek
39805 N 3rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel #211-73-040-F
From:
Renee Hunter
To:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Cc:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 22, 2021 4:18:24 PM
To: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
CC. Sean Watkins
I am writing this e-mail regarding the SUP Case # Z2021044 for the proposed T-
Mobile 5G Cell Phone Tower located at Desert Hills & 7th Ave.
I strongly agree with the denial issued by the Planning & Zoning Commission for this SUP (Case #
Z2021044) and I request that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors do the same....deny the SUP!
Our cell phone and internet service is just fine. We do not need the tower, nor do we want it!
I already have to see the ugly 65 foot APS poles out my front window. I don't want to have to look at an
80 foot (or any other size) cell phone tower as well. This will be an 80 foot eyesore coming out of our
beautiful desert landscape. For this reason, I ask that you deny the SUP.
I am concerned that our property values will drop. If and when we try to sell, nobody is going to want to
buy a home with an 80 foot tall cell tower out the front window! For this reason, I ask that you deny the
SUP.
I am concerned about the long term health risks associated with having a 5G cell tower right across the
street. There has not been enough long term testing done on what the effects might be on both humans
and animals in the direct vicinity. For this reason, I ask that you deny the SUP.
I am concerned that an 80 foot cell tower in between my house and the transmitters on South Mountain
will interfere with my digital TV reception. I am also concerned that it will interfere with my current Verizon
cell phone service. For this reason, I ask that you deny the SUP.
Thank you for your time & consideration.
Renee Hunter
39504 N. 4th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-058A
From:
Renee Hunter
To:
COB Agenda Comments; Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:27:53 AM
Attachments:
SUP and Dead End sign.png
SUP Sign.png
Hello again Mr. Watkins & Members on Maricopa Board of Supervisors,
I have voiced my opposition on this SUP previously, as I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this SUP and the
5G Cell Tower being built.
I would like to submit some additional information about how deceptive I think that the placement of the
signage that was posted for the Maricopa County Notice of Special Use Permit Request & Public
Hearings was. These signs were poorly placed to where no one would see them.
In the previous meeting on July 8th with the planning committee, a homeowner on 3rd Avenue spoke at
the meeting about how one of the signs was placed near where the tower would actually go and it was
not visible at all! She said that it wasn't until she posted on social media that it got moved to Desert Hills.
The second sign was placed (and still is located) off of Desert Hills and 3rd Avenue which is a Dead End
road! The only people that would see that sign would be the people that live at the houses on the 2
parcels on that road and no one else! How is this supposed to be a "Notice of Public Hearings" when it is
placed where the PUBLIC doesn't even see it?
The second sign should have been placed on the main road, 7th Avenue near Desert Hills where
members of our neighborhood would actually see it and have the option to voice their opinion on the
matter! I believe that the signs were deliberately placed where no one could see them so that our
neighborhood had no idea what was being proposed until it was too late.
I have attached photos for your review.
Thank you,
Renee Hunter
39504 N. 4th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-058A
AZ CL-A 069374/CL-B 083636 CA 587527 GA GCCO003558 MS 19613 MT 10157
NM GF98-27218 / GA98-27218 NV 0028660 ND CL-A 39866 UT 89-248915-5501
July 20, 2021
Attention:
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Re:
Desert Hills Cell Tower
I live at 148 West Fernwood Drive Phoenix, AZ 85086 which is approximately 600-feet from the proposed
cell tower. This tower is an 80-foot abomination placed directly in the middle of a sprawling
neighborhood. Desert Hills is full of acre lots with large homes primarily made up of a retired
community who moved out of the city to enjoy the beautiful views and quietness of the
neighborhood.
This cell phone tower was denied unanimously by the planning and zoning commission. I fully agreed
with this decision as the cell phone tower was being placed only for a money grab by T-Mobile. The
proposed tower was said to be for emergency phone calling, yet as shown in the meeting this was a
blatant lie as the area is already well covered as is.
This proposal received over 500 complaints from the neighborhood not wishing for the eye soar in the
middle of their community. This tower is not needed in the area other than for T-Mobile to make an
additional profit. They are wishing to put it on a rental property where the owner is not a part of the
community and thus should not be able to ruin the remainder of the residence’s beautiful views for a
few dollars.
In conclusion Desert Hills has great cell service as is and a wonderful community. This area does not
need an 80-foot tower that was fed by lies, propaganda and attempted nauseating talk arounds
during the entire process. Please agree with the planning and zoning commission by denying this
abomination of a tower.
Sincerely
Steve Zimpelman
From:
Susie Marsman
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Subject:
Cell tower in Desert Hills
Date:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:24:55 PM
To whom it may concern. I am in complete agreement with the Maricopa County
Planning and Zoning Commission who voted against the Cell Tower. Not only will
this be a Eyesore, it is also harmful to the community. The values of our houses will
decrease . Although my main concern is about the Health Risks it can or will impose
on those around it!
From:
Theresa
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
Theresa Boettcher
Subject:
SUP Case # Z2021044
Date:
Monday, July 26, 2021 10:15:33 AM
Hello Mr. Watkins,
My name is Theresa Smith. I am a taxpayer, a registered voter, and a homeowner. I
live at 39808 N. 3rd Ave, Phoenix, 85086. My Parcel ID # is: 211-73-040D.
I am writing to inform you and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that I do
NOT want an 80-foot, 5G, cell tower installed in my neighborhood. I agree with
the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, who voted unanimously to
deny this special use permit, during their hearing held back on 07/08/2021.
The health concerns associated with long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation
(RFR) has NOT been thoroughly researched by the scientific community and has
NOT been proven to be safe -- far from it! I have had three immediate family
members die from various cancers within my lifetime. Dying from cancer is a horrible
death.
I moved into my current North 3rd Avenue residence back in 2005. I chose to live
on the fringe of the city, even though I knew I was moving into a part of Maricopa
County that came with limitations in regards to conveniences and infrastructure.
I am asking the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to DENY the Special Use
Permit, Case # Z2021044, for the proposed T-Mobile 5G Cell Tower that was
also unanimously rejected by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
on 07/08/2021.
Respectfully,
Theresa Smith
Taxpayer
Registered Voter
Property Owner: Parcel # 211-73-040D
From:
Theresa
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc:
Theresa Boettcher; Bryan Smith
Subject:
Re: Z2021044- Special Use Permit (SUP) - Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Date:
Monday, August 2, 2021 8:29:56 AM
Attachments:
Comparison_of_Maps.pdf
Hello Mr. Watkins,
As I look through the materials submitted by Gary Cassel of Clear Blue
Services to promote the case for an 80-foot high, 13-foot diameter, 5G, T-Mobile cell
tower, I am stunned that Clear Blue Services is allowed to use older, low-res maps
to apply for this special use permit.
I have lived on parcel # 211-73-040D (39808 N. 3rd Ave., 85086) since 2004. My
husband, Bryan Smith, has lived on the parcel even longer—since 2001. These
aerial maps supplied by Gary Cassel of Clear Blue Services are older and of poor
quality and are extremely misleading as a result. The area of Desert Hills
surrounding the intersection of 7th Avenue and Desert Hills Drive is MUCH more
developed with homes than appears in these deceptive materials. Additionally, this
area is much more populated than some regions of "New River"—which is indicated
as the proposed Site on page 1 of the WCF tower's application.
If Clear Blue Services et al are resorting to this level of deceptive tactics, what else
are they hiding?
This North Phoenix neighborhood is called "Desert Hills" for a reason: It is surrounded
by hills. Surely Gary Cassel and Clear Blue Services can apply for a permit to install
this 80-foot high, 13-foot diameter, 5G, T-Mobile cell tower ON TOP of one of the
area mountains instead of in a residential neighborhood? Who knows? Given the
enormous size of this monstrosity, the tower might even function more effectively
perched on a mountaintop than planted on the floor of a valley. Additionally, the level
of public protest will likely drop significantly if this tower is installed away from
residences populated with people.
The health concerns associated with long-term exposure to radio frequency
radiation (RFR) has NOT been thoroughly researched by the scientific
community and has NOT been proven to be safe—far from it.
I chose to live on the outskirts of Metro-Phoenix, even though I knew I was moving
into a part of Maricopa County that came with limitations in regards to access to
“conveniences” and infrastructure. Living in the scenic Sonoran Desert beauty with
unobstructed views is of MUCH greater importance to me than making sure I
have uninterrupted data transfer services (cell phone, texting, Internet
streaming, etc.).
I also made it a point NOT to purchase property near towers due to the health
risks and the eyesore. Other prospective homeowners will feel the same way,
meaning—not only is our health and quality of life at risk—but the property
values will drop accordingly.
I am asking the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to DENY the Special Use
Permit, Case # Z2021044, for the proposed T-Mobile 5G Cell Tower that
was unanimously rejected by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
on 07/08/2021.
I have attached a PDF containing two maps. One map is the older, low-quality map
submitted by Gary Cassel and Clear Blue Services. The other map is a newer,
higher-quality map which better illustrates the number of homes immediately
impacted by the proposed 80-foot high, 13-foot diameter, 5G, T-Mobile cell tower.
Respectfully,
Theresa Smith
Taxpayer
Registered Voter
Homeowner: Parcel ID # 211-73-040D
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:59 PM Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you submitted at least one comment to me regarding
this proposal.
The case is scheduled to be heard by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) on
August 4, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
The hearing will be virtual (online/telephonic) via GoToWebinar and you may listen only or
register to speak at the hearing by following the directions in the Maricopa County Clerk of
the Board webpage on Monday, August 2, 2021. The agenda, staff reports and related
materials will be available from the following web link on Monday, August 2, 2021.
https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information
Some comments were received after the publication of the hearing staff report, so you may
not see your comment in the hearing materials if you submitted it recently. Please rest
assured that ALL comments received by me to date (and up to the day before the hearing)
will be provided to the BOS as a handout.
Thank you!
Sean Watkins
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-506-8150
sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital.
Find information on our new permit process here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
From:
Tommy D
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Special Use Permit for agenda item # 12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ-5068 Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:08:36 AM
Dear Mr. Watkins and all others involved;
Please do NOT allow this tower to be built in our area of Desert Hills. You may or may not be aware of
the type of lifestyle we have in Desert Hills but an 80' tower and compound definitely does not fit in here
at all. This is a horse type community with many people having many different types of animals. We,
along with lots of wildlife have already been impacted by the massive amount of building that has gone on
here in the last few years. We are supposed to have 1 acre minimum lots and generally have horse
privileges. Builders have been granted variances and we see many homes with what appears to be less
than 1 acre lots. We are already dealing with increased traffic while many roads are not even paved. We
don't have street lights, my road is unpaved and some services are limited BUT that's the lifestyle out
here. Some people are trying to turn Desert Hills into a CA suburb, while this is not what this AZ
neighborhood is all about. This tower and its compound will adversely affect coyotes and javelina that
live in the very area of this proposed tower. The tower will be an eyesore and be taller than anything
existing. It will lower home values near it and may have other negative effects.
Desert Hills has seen an increase of people from other states that want faster this and faster that, yet they
chose to move to this area. How have we been able to survive all this time without 5G or anything else
that is being proposed? How am I able to write this email to you from Desert Hills without the almighty
5G? There are people that are commenting about this tower and compound for Desert Hills, yet they
don't live in Desert Hills. Well, if they think it's a good idea, let them put the tower in their neighborhoods.
I've seen people write that they want to be able to download pictures faster on their phones. Is that what
is really important, or is preserving a semi-rural area that has already been infested with people that don't
care about the land or the water issues or anything that doesn't bring them convenience? PLEASE don't
allow Desert Hills to be turned into a city type environment or have an eyesore within a beautiful
neighborhood. This is a beautiful place with horses and coyotes and bobcats and javelina, etc.. We've
already been taken advantage of by money grabbing builders, please let us keep whatever is remaining
of our beautiful Arizona neighborhood. It's almost funny how people leave one area because they've
ruined it and then move to another area that they obviously like how it is being managed, then they turn
around and try and make it like the failed place they fled from.?.? Please, let's do what's right and say
NO to this monstrosity. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Dana Sr.
Thomas Dana Sr.
38906 N Central Ave
Desert Hills, AZ
85086 NO!!!! NO !!!!!! NO TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AGENDA
ITEM #12. VERTICAL BRIDGE/T-MOBILE AZ 5068 CASE# Z2021044
(845) 238-9357
From:
Vivian Decker
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - COBX
Date:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 5:24:41 PM
My Husband and I are concerned neighbors living in the area of the proposed
wireless communication facility. We feel the need to voice our concerns over this
project.
We understand growth, we have seen a lot of it here in beautiful Desert Hills in the 12
years we have lived here.
The County has standards in place when it comes to zoning that protects existing
communities such as ours.
Standards such as, setback from property lines and array diameters.
If a special use permit is given for this project it can and may very well set a new
precedent for the next WCF in our community.
Residents here in Desert Hills place a high priority on the preservation of the natural
environment, its washes, hillsides, and mountain views.
My Husband and I agree with the denial issued by the Planning & Zoning
Commission. We are asking you to not approve this SUP.
If approve please implement items that have been suggested;
pole height
matching the existing APS poles in the area, for a uniform look
height of attenuation walls
shaded lighting within the compound
Our address is 519 W Ridgecrest Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel # 211-73-031H
Respectfully,
Harry Decker
Vivian Decker
From:
synergstx@aol.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Re: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 8:55:51 AM
PS; The photo map is obsolete by many years, which tells me of misleading behaviour. our house built in
2001v wqsnt even on there.
John W.
-----Original Message-----
From: synergstx@ aol.com
To: synergstx@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 9:45 pm
Subject: Fwd: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
-----Original Message-----
From: synergstx@aol.com
To: sean.watkins@maricopa.gov <sean.watkins@maricopa.gov>; synergstx@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 9:44 pm
Subject: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Jul 7 2021
from John H Williams, Carol A Williams at 39714 N 3rde Ave, Phoenix AZ 85086 nearby about 1500 feet
north of proposed T Mobile cell antenna tower location. We adamantly oppose this project for following
reasons:
1. other more3 open areas are nearby to the north.
2. we will ne near unknown radiation RF levels emitting from antennas.
3. Tower proposed to be 80 fees high which make3s it visible from our neighborhood.
4. finish is only painy instead of the cortex finish
5. cars on desert hills road will be blasted by RF emission from antennas day and night.
6. sound levels from equipment / housing will be heart by us, our neighbors.
7. We feel this project has been strung on us without much chance to have adequate time to review all
aspects of proposal (radiation, sound, etc.
8 We dont have time to take part the meeting Jul 8 in downtown PHX to intelligently deal with this. PS
looks like we are excluded anyway.
9. Added parts of the plan is to add more antennas, equipment with further impacts (RF, etc)
10 for this we soundly oppose this project as many of our neighbors do !!
John H. Williams, Carol A Williams July 7 2021 PM
From:
Garrett Frix
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
7/8/21 Agenda for 5G Z2021044
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 10:34:02 AM
Hello Rachel and Sean,
I am in opposition to building the new wireless communication facility special use permit Z2021044 on parcel 211-
23-014F.
I live in Anthem at 40713 N Territory Trail and we do not want this 5G technology brought to this area in North
Phoenix.
We have serious concerns about the safety of this and do not want it here in Desert Hills.
Thank you,
Garrett Frix
Sent from my iPhone
From:
paul buff
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Cell tower installation at 7th ave and Desert Hills
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 12:17:01 PM
Hello Sean,
I hope you and yours are doing well. I have lived in Desert Hills since April of 2006. I oppose any new
cell tower installations in Desert Hills. Please have new providers use existing sites. Keep the visual
disturbance in those areas. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Buff
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed
on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received
within 15 calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on
the regular agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Submit this form to the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department:
501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Fax Number: 602-506-3711
Hours of Operation: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
This appeal can also be submitted via e-mail at the following e-mail address:
PZAppeal@mail.maricopa.gov
- Appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation
The Appeal Form can also be submitted on the Maricopa County Planning & Development
website at the following web address:
http://www.maricopa.gov/799/Boards-and-Commissions
Please print clearly.
Case Number/ Project Name:
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date:
Appellant Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone Number:
E-mail:
Reason for the Appeal of the
subject case:
Appellant Signature:
Date:
Z2021044–Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
July 8, 2021
Alan & Candy Muller
39307 N 9th Ave
Desert Hills, AZ 85086-0505
(602) 432-2800
4DaisyMountain@gmail.com
This is a commercial property in the middle of a residential community.
if the tower was 65', and cortens rust was used (like the APS poles) it would blend into the community.
Also the safety protocol of 2' out for every foot up would be closer in distance to the lot line. The only
reason T-Mobile needs 80' is so they lease space below. The community would prefer no commercial
WCF in the middle of our residential community. Let's do the 65' and make this the example if need be!
July 2, 2021
LEGEND
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
17
PROJECT DIRECTORY
PROJECT INFORMATION
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 441.25
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 220.60 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 220.48
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 601.44
FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 67.04 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AN AREA CONTAINING 1050 SQ FT MORE OR LESS.
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
LEGEND
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawn:
Designed:
Project Title
Checked:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Engineer Stamp
Drawing Number
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
Date:
10/04/21
AS NOTED
S e r v i c e s
Clear Blue
3530 E. ATLANTA AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85040 602-426-9500
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
US-AZ-5068
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
From:
Brandi lynn
To:
Sean Watkins (PND); Bill Gates (BOS)
Subject:
Parcel 211-23-014D
Date:
Wednesday, March 23, 2022 8:22:43 PM
I am absolutely apposed to the cell tower near my property. My parcel number is 211-23-014D. I have submitted
home plans to the county to be approved to build a home for my children and I. My daughters are 6 years old, 7
years old, 21 years old and my grandson is 1.5 years old. Here are my reasons why I’m opposed:
-there is not enough research to know if the energy or 5G affects human cells, my kids are so young and still
growing.
-it does Not belong in a residential community! Until there is proof that it is safe to humans and live stock, protect
your community and children from the exposure and potential harm!
-value of property- mine will severely depreciate!
-undesirable visual impact
-It would change the character of the neighborhood of single-family homes, in the open and silent desert, with views
of mountains and natural habitat!
-The Board should ensure that the use will be harmonious with and will not adversely affect the use or development
of neighboring properties! The location, size, and height of proposed tower is not conducive with our community!
-the board must consider, this will hinder and discourage the use or development of adjacent properties or impair the
value of those properties!
-the board’s job is to preserve the character of an area by preventing harmful effects of potentially dissimilar uses.
-safety issues to homeowners and workers! NO notice when the service men will be servicing the tower could result
in a homeowner defending their home from potential threats and trespassing while on our easements. Hours of
12am-5am!
ALL 3 parcels (including the parcel the tower is going on- which is a rental property) have single women living
there. Having men and trucks coming through at night on a dead end road, where no traffic but the three residents
should be, is not ok!
-No notice was ever given to any of us who recently purchased the neighboring parcels.
In conclusion, renting out private land for commercial business and profit is wrong!!! Put it on commercial land and
get it out of private residential land! Taking away value from residential homeowners, jeopardizing the community’s
health, negatively impacting the visual esthetics of the area, and creating a safety issue for the individuals
maintaining the tower as well as homeowners is Reprehensible!
Sincerely,
Brandi Huczel Suderback
602-586-0528
Sent from my iPhone
New River/Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
PO Box 75068
New River, AZ 85087-1000
Phone: (602) 739-1235
Website: www.nrdhca.com
https://www.facebook.com/NRDHCA/
President email: Etaylor@estentinc.com
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile / Clearblue Services, Z2021044, 39212 N 3rd Ave, 211-23-014F
Board Members,
The NR/DHCA is an all-volunteer community organization that has been representing
residents in the north valley since 1985. This area includes the unincorporated portion of
Maricopa County roughly from Dove Valley Road (Phoenix) to the county northern
border and from 24th Street (Cave Creek) to 43th Avenue (Phoenix). Our mission is
dedicated to the preservation of our community and its rural lifestyle. The NR/DHCA
board and association members have researched this case by studying the proposal, and
talking with various county officials. Residents at our community meeting, expressed
comments and concerns that were overwhelmingly against the location, access, and
appearance of the property. While NR/DHCA supports responsible growth and
development, our research indicates the rezoning of these parcels will have serious
negative effects on the surrounding neighborhoods.
We have discussed this item in open meetings, made personal visits to the site, and
talked to surrounding residents. The Board feels that There are alternative sites that are
already used for this purpose, better suited both logistically and aesthetically. Therefore
we would ask that the board deny the application.
Thank you,
Edward Taylor, President
New River / Desert Hills Community Association
From:
Brian Cavender
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
My parcel 211-73-114
Date:
Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:23:46 PM
I am absolutely apposed to the cell tower near my property. Please do not move forward with this project in this
community.
From:
Jennifer Wright
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Re: proposed cell tower installation southeast of the intersection of West Desert Hills Drive and North 7th Avenue
Date:
Friday, March 25, 2022 1:31:16 PM
Sure, my address is:
813 W. Tamar Road
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Thank you for including my opposition.
Jennifer Wright
On Mar 25, 2022, at 1:08 PM, Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Wright,
Your comment has been added to the project record for consideration by the
Applicant, County Staff and the Board of Supervisors.
Would you care to idenitfy your address or parcel number? I ask because your distance
from the subject property is part of how your oppinion is weighed.
Thank you!
Sean Watkins
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-506-8150
sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital.
Find information on our new permit process here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
From: Jennifer Wright <carefreeinaz@ymail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Bill Gates (BOS) <Bill.Gates@Maricopa.Gov>; Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: proposed cell tower installation southeast of the intersection of West Desert
Hills Drive and North 7th Avenue
Mr. Gates and Mr. Watkins,
I would like to voice my opposition to the T mobile cell tower proposed to pollute my neighborhood. Not only is it an eyesore, but
it will also ruin resale value, it is a known health hazard and the reason we live rural, is because we don't want to be near equipment
such as this. There is no issue with coverage in the area, and where it is an issue, they can have the tower erected in their
neighborhood. Either Anthem or New River, who are actually those that are complaining about coverage but don't want the
unsightly monstrosity in their view.
I am not aware of anyone in the vicinity that supports this matter, who would?
I will attend next Thursday and let my voice be heard in person, along with many others that I will assemble to oppose it as well.
Not in my neighborhood,
Jennifer Wright
From:
Jennifer Wright
To:
Bill Gates (BOS); Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
proposed cell tower installation southeast of the intersection of West Desert Hills Drive and North 7th Avenue
Date:
Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:00:22 AM
Mr. Gates and Mr. Watkins,
I would like to voice my opposition to the T mobile cell tower proposed to pollute my neighborhood. Not only is it an eyesore, but it will
also ruin resale value, it is a known health hazard and the reason we live rural, is because we don't want to be near equipment such as
this. There is no issue with coverage in the area, and where it is an issue, they can have the tower erected in their neighborhood. Either
Anthem or New River, who are actually those that are complaining about coverage but don't want the unsightly monstrosity in their view.
I am not aware of anyone in the vicinity that supports this matter, who would?
I will attend next Thursday and let my voice be heard in person, along with many others that I will assemble to oppose it as well.
Not in my neighborhood,
Jennifer Wright
From:
Elly Whyte
To:
Bill Gates (BOS); Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
Objection to proposed cell tower installation at the S.E. intersection of W. Desert Hills Dr & N 7th Ave.
Date:
Friday, March 25, 2022 2:03:39 PM
Dear Sirs:
I write to you as a concerned neighbor who lives in the vicinity of this
proposed tower installation at 7th Ave & Desert Hills Drive.
Approval for this structure was requested and disallowed a couple of years
ago, things have not changed within the community, it is still not something
our community needs or desires. We, in Desert Hills, do not need this
eyesore added to our beautiful desert area.
As a local REALTOR® I have concerns that this will bring a decrease in
value of real property, in addition to the visual upset in the area due to the
gigantic height of the proposed structure. These towers bring known health
hazards and we are not in need of them in our community. If residents in
Anthem or nearby New River are requesting additional towers for their own
use to poor service or signal strength, please have the tower brought to
them for their approval.
Sincerely,
Elaine Whyte
9 E Tanya Road
Phoenix, AZ 85086
602/309-2802
From:
rhunter getshutterparts.com
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
SUP Case #: Z2021044
Date:
Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:10:44 AM
Hello Mr. Watkins,
I am writing this e-mail to oppose the Special Use Permit Case #
Z2021044 at Desert Hills and 7th Avenue for the Proposed T-Mobil Cell
Phone Tower at the following parcel : Accessors Parcel # 211-23-014F
I would like to oppose the Special Use Permit and oppose the cell
phone tower being built.
It will be an eyesore! I don’t want to look out my front window at a 65
foot cell phone tower! It will be the only thing sticking up out of the
ground, a giant ugly brown tower coming up out of the middle of our
beautiful desert landscape. I also do not want to have any excess
lighting nor do I want to listen to any excess noise being made from the
cell tower or things used to run it. This is a dark, peaceful, quiet
neighborhood, which is why I moved here. I want to keep it that way. I
do not want a cell tower built here!
I am concerned that it is going to drastically reduce our resale value of
our home & the other homes in the surrounding area. No one is going
to want purchase a house where when you out the front window , there
is a big, ugly, brown 65 foot cell tower! For this reason, I do not want it
built here!
I am concerned for my health and the health of my neighbors, our pets
and our livestock.. I do not believe that there has been enough long-
term testing on the health risks of living so close to a cell phone tower. I
do believe that there will be increased health risks & issues from a cell
phone tower being so close, therefore, I do not want it built here!
Please keep me informed of the dates to any upcoming dates, times
and the locations of meetings regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Renee Hunter
39504 N. 4th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel number 211-73-058A
N 4th
Ave
N 3rd
Ave
Desert Hills Dr
211
23
014E
211
23
014D
211
23
013
211
23
012
211
23
014E
211
23
014D
211
23
013
211
23
012
211
23
014F
211
23
316
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Document Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopment\OppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIMER: This map is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Maricopa County, its officers, departments, employees and agents
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands or damages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this map, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form.
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Maricopa County OET, GIS Division, 8/4/2021
80
0
80
40
Feet
Opposition and Support
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Supporting Parcel
BusinessPND.GIS.casemap
Opposition Parcel
All Opposition Parcels
300' Buffer Selection
300' Buffer Interior
Eligible parcels: 5
Supporting parcels: 0
Opposition parcels: 4
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0
Opposition parcels sq ft: 268,831.93
Subject parcels sq ft: 72,545.91
All area inside the 300' buffer:
685,063.05
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW and excluded parcels: 609,819.16
No-response parcels sq ft: 340,987.21
Super Majority opposed parcel acres:
44%
Super Majority opposed parcel number:
80%
7th St
NewRive
r
Rd
Desert Hills Dr
Joy Ranch Rd
7th
A
ve
A
nthe
m
W
y
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
680
0
680
340
Feet
Local Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
107th Ave
Cam
elback Rd
Jom
ax Rd
83rd
Ave
W
estw
ing
Pkw
y
A
lm
aSch
oolPkw
y
Jom
ax Rd
CarefreeHw
y
Joy Ranch Rd
7th St
24th St
32n
d
S
t
Pio
n
eer
R
d
Ant
h
e
m
W
y
Dove
Valley
R
d
Honda
BowRd
19th Ave
2
7
th
A
v
e
Cloud Rd
Trail Head
C
a
ve
C
reek
P
k
w
y
Ne
w
Ri
v
e
rRd
Dedic
a
ti
o
n
T
r
B
lack
M
ou
ntai
n
P
k
w
y
40th St
O
livin
e
Ave
16thSt
C
ir
c
leM
ountainRd
M
eridi
anD
r
F
r
eedom
W
y
Dai
sy
M
ount
a
inDr
3
2
n
d
A
v
e
N
ort
h
V
a
lley
P
k
w
y
G
a
vi
la
n
P
eak
P
k
w
y
303
17
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601
Docum
ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm
ent\O
ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx
DISCLAIM
ER: This m
ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem
nify, defend and hold harm
less M
aricopa County, its officers, departm
ents, em
ployees and agents
from
and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm
inistrative proceedings, claim
s, dem
ands or dam
ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m
ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form
.
w
w
w
.m
aricopa.gov/planning
M
aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
4,000
0
4,000
2,000
Feet
All Responses
Z2021044
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
From:
Dave Nielsen
To:
Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject:
RE: Z2021044 - Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068 - Scheduled for Board of Supervisors Hearing April 20, 2022
Date:
Monday, March 21, 2022 11:50:07 AM
Hello Sean,
Daisy mountain has no concerns or comments regarding this project.
Respectfully,
Dave Nielsen
Assistant Chief - Fire Prev.
DaisyMountainFire.org
623-465-7400 x119
From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:10 PM
Subject: Z2021044 - Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068 - Scheduled for Board of Supervisors Hearing
April 20, 2022
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you are registered as an interested party in District 3 or you
submitted at least one comment about Special Use Permit (SUP) Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge / T-
Mobile AZ-5068. The subject Wireless Communication Facility (cell tower & compound) is proposed
south of Desert Hills Drive and east of 7th Avenue, on parcel 211-23-014F.
Z2021044 is currently scheduled for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Hearing on April 20, 2022,
beginning at 9:30 a.m. You may attend the hearing in person at the BOS Auditorium 205 W.
Jefferson St., Phoenix or online, via GoToWebinar.com. To attend online, follow the directions in the
hearing agenda to be published on about April 15, 2022 at this web address:
https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information
Z2021044 went before the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 2021 where the vote was 7-0
for denial. Z2021044 then went before the BOS on August 4, 2021 where the case was indefinitely
continued by a vote of 4-0.
Since then the plans have been revised and the proposal now includes a 65 ft. tall tower (formerly 80
ft.), treated with a rust (CORTEN) finish (formerly painted brown) and a 9.5 ft. antenna array
diameter (formerly 13 ft.), per the attached sheets from the current, revised site plan.
In addition to speaking at the BOS Hearing, you may submit comments to me to be made part of the
project record.
Thank you!
Sean Watkins
Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602-506-8150
sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
P&D is now 100% digital.
Find information on our new permit process here:
https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of July 8, 2021
Page 18 of 21
his fellow commissioners, this is not an appropriate use. Not only does it harm property
values but day-to-day life. He is strongly opposed to this case.
Chairman Arnett said the use is okay and there is probably a need, but zoning this to C-
2 changes this area. Those in opposition want a neighbor not a business next to them,
and even though it could look like a house, it’s not a neighbor.
COMMISSION
ACTION:
Commissioner
Schlosser
motioned
to
deny
Z2021021.
Commissioner Hernandez second. 7-0.
Special Use Permit - Z2021044
District 3
Project name:
Vertical Bridge/T-Mobile AZ-5068
Applicant:
Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services
Request:
Special Use Permit for a new wireless communication facility in the
Rural-43 RUPD zoning district
Location:
Approx. 750 ft. southeast of the SEC of 7th Ave. and Desert Hills Dr. in
the New River area
Mr. Watkins presented Z2021044 and noted the 80 foot tower would be in a new 30’x35’
compound. The tower will be painted brown and the compound will be enclosed by a
10 ft. tall CMU wall. The T-Mobile wireless level of service in the area is characterized by
full-strength signal for calls made outdoors, but inside most calls would be blocked or
dropped. The signal strength is improved with the 65 ft. tall tower; however, the 80 foot
tower provides the strongest signal coverage. The SUP includes three development
standard modification requests, the proposed 80 ft. setback from the west and north and
140 ft. setback from the east subject property boundary to the tower, where 160 ft.
setback is required. The proposed antenna array is 13 ft. in diameter where 8 ft. is the
maximum diameter allowed. Eliminating two Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) that would be
required with driveway meets the public street. The applicant complied with the citizen
review process including site postings and notifications. As of this morning staff is aware
of 89 opposing parties. One of the opposition lives within 300 feet of subject site. The
applicant held a public meeting on June 1, 2021 with 19 attendees. Meeting
announcements were sent to more than 200 addresses in the area. Staff believes the
SUP request is reasonable and necessary to maintain and expand cell phone service in
the area. Local jurisdiction cannot by statute regulate aspects of wireless communication
facilities, they are already regulated by federal communication regulations. Staff
recommends approval subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’.
Mr. Gary Cassel with Clear Blue Services said this will be a 30’ x 35’ walled compound,
and it was going to be an 8’ wall but the community requested it to be10’ high. The pole
and the compound wall will be in the same texture and painted brown in color, since the
corten steel could bleed onto the equipment. He had a ½ mile radius to find the right
location in order for the 5G system to work within the framework that is already there.
Most of the other properties had washes and it can’t be that close to the washes, so they
had to find a place away from residents and the washes. They had a community meeting
with 19 attendees and they answered their questions and concerns. After the meeting
he sent out a re-cap of all the questions, concerns and answers that were discussed to
help them understand. They outreached Ed Taylor with the New River / Desert Hills HOA
and a notice went out to 540 addresses to deliver as much information as they could.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of July 8, 2021
Page 19 of 21
They took in consideration to what kind of coverage is there now, and this is a mandate
from the FCC. Sprint was bought by T-Mobile and all the people with Sprint and T-Mobile
phones are affected the same way. There is a real need to have the improvements in
that area for every reason like 911 calls and blocked calls. You have to go outside to
actually get an emergency phone call made or it won’t go through. With a 65 feet pole
we don’t have anywhere near the capability, and it starts to fail the 5G networking
system. The 5G system gives T-Mobile and Sprint the opportunity to connect up so there
isn’t a disconnection, and causes a lesser power amount from each one of those sites.
Out of all the different types of radio frequency people use on a daily basis, this tower
would have the least amount of radio frequency emissions. The public had concerns of
the wall and pole height, and the corten color.
Mr. Lincoln Hunter said he lives across the street from the proposed site, and nobody
wants to stare at an 80 foot tall eyesore. It has little to do with the color or the height of
the wall. Nobody wants this. Our cell phones work just fine out here we can make and
receive calls without a problem. They are just trying to bring in more towers for the 5G
network. It is more like an optional thing and our choice is we don’t want this tower here
because it is not necessary.
Ms. Renee Lincoln said she is concerned with their property values, and nobody wants to
look out the window and see an 80 feet cell tower. Also concerned about health issues.
Not enough studies have been done for long term 5G health effects for animals and
people.
Mr. Keith Paffrath said he lives a few hundred yards north of the proposed cell tower.
There is nothing in their community that is 80 foot tall, and it would make it the tallest
structure in the Desert Hills / Cave Creek area. There is no need for it. The applicant wants
it taller with more antennas so they can add other cell companies to increase their profit
while exposing the community to 5G waves. That property was zoned to be residential
several years ago and it is a matter of time for homes to come in. This would make them
less desirable because of the proximity of this 80 foot tower. There is an entire Carefree
Highway corridor these companies can look at where they are commercially zoned, and
we do not need this in our community.
Mr. David Packman said he echoes the previous speakers’ comments with the property
value issues and health issues. Where they want to place this tower is literally in the back
yard of one of the residents. He lives east of the property and is one of the closest people
to it. He doesn’t think this is the best option for this tower and they can find someplace
else for it. If they get one of these to go up it will set a precedent and other will spring up.
Ms. Amanda Rokofsky said she moved on her property in February and it was unknown
to them that this tower was going to be built. She has issues with the 80 foot tower that
they would have to look at every day. She never received any information for a second
community meeting. They moved out of the city to live healthy and get away from all of
this with their livestock and kids. Her family would feel betrayed if this gets approved.
There many other places this could go than 284 feet from her property.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of July 8, 2021
Page 20 of 21
Mr. Steven Zimpelman said 500 people signed a petition to stop this, and nobody wants
this. There were low numbers at the meeting because of COVID and nobody wanted to
be exposed especially the elderly in our community. The pole is within 100 feet of a few
of the closest houses and within a few hundred feet of his house. Nobody cares about
the paint color, we don’t want an 80 foot tower which would be the tallest structure in
the neighborhood. People moved out here to get away from everything, to have some
land, nice views, and not have an 80 foot tower right out your door.
Mr. Alan Muller said he is a community leader and he was the president of the HOA until
mid-2019. He asked a few neighbors to collect signatures for the petition requesting
denial of the SUP, and sent letters to the residents of the surrounding community. When
he was a Planning and Zoning commissioner he assisted in updating the Wireless
Communication Facilities (WCF), there was no by-right. Maricopa County maintains
zoning in order to protect its unincorporated communities. The array antenna limited to
8 feet and for every foot up there must be two feet out to the property line. Lighting must
be inside the compound and shielded to protect the dark sky ordinance. The standards
in 1202.2.6 in the zoning ordinance regarding height, diameter and concealment
elements to ensure structures do not have an adverse visual impact or harm public
welfare. T-Mobile is attempting to erect a WCF in our area without consideration of the
community by not complying with county zoning. We have two of the three major carriers
servicing Desert Hills and the 5G Verizon tower down the street does not have a 15 foot
array. He requests the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
deny this SUP.
Commissioner Gress asked if the poles were 65 feet would that satisfy the community?
Mr. Muller said the height is the biggest issue. Two miles away is a 65 foot AT&T pole made
out of the corten material with no problems. Sixty-five feet is a good negotiating term,
except the salesman did not want to negotiate anything.
Commissioner Gress asked was the public participation consistent from what you’ve seen
in the past. Mr. Muller said the mailing went out, but the 530 e-mails did not go out to
everybody in our area. They considered mostly the New River area, not the Desert Hills
area. The amount of people that attended the meeting is common plus with COVID and
others that are handicapped.
Commissioner McGee asked if he did in fact offer a compromise solution of the corten
steel and the 65 feet as opposed to the 80 foot. Mr. Muller said that is correct and they
didn’t want to listen to it.
Commissioner McGee said she is opposed to the project as it has been presented. She
would consider the compromise but she would rather start with a no. She also has
significant process concerns related to the request.
Ms. Amanda Rakofsky said when the posting signs were first placed facing east, and
unless you were coming to her house for dinner or a visit you would not see the
notification. The second one was placed at the site hidden by brush and trees, and it
wasn’t moved to Desert Hills until she notified them. Some people still couldn’t see it
because it was angled east. The notifications have been a struggle from the beginning.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of July 8, 2021
Page 21 of 21
Chairman Arnett asked was this noticed properly per the Maricopa County guidelines.
Mr. Watkins said yes it was posted and notified according to the rules. The requirements
are every site should be posted every quarter mile on its frontage. This property is tucked
away, and one sign was on the site and a second sign was posted in Desert Hills. We put
it up there to overcome the shortcomings of the property in terms of posting notification.
Pretty quickly after the first submittal of the project it was done at staff’s request, and the
applicant had to work with MCDOT to get a permit to place it there.
Mr. Cassel said we have Sprint and T-Mobile involved and they have different radio
equipment and we are trying to make that into one antenna structure. The antennas as
large as they are cannot be close together or they cause a cross-talk and the new 5G
system requires a greater distance than what is allowed by the county. We are asking
for an exception on the basis of that. The lights only come on when a technician is there,
and the location of the light is lower than the 10 foot wall, and it would only light up within
the framework of the compound. They only visit the site once a month. There won’t be
interference since they are specific radio frequencies, and not much of a possibility for
anything else to affect it.
Chairman Arnett asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. None.
Vice Chair Swart said he knows a lot of about this topic and he read an extensive article
about a race for 5G. He is offended the presenter alleged people can’t call 911, which
is not true. Others said they have plenty of cell phone coverage. He does not support
this nor a 65 foot pole. This is an egregious misuse of this piece of land.
Commissioner McGee said this is in the middle of the desert and there is a lot of
development yet to come. They were offered a reasonable compromise and the
community were not heard. She believes this needs to be denied.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Gress motioned to deny Z2021044. Commissioner
McGee second. Denied 7-0.
Chairman Arnett adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m.
Prepared by Rosalie Pinney
Recording Secretary
July 8, 2021