Ed Purcell, representing Verizon Wireless, explained the necessity of the proposed 38.5-foot tall utility pole, intended to alleviate congestion on existing antennas and improve service quality in the area. The proposed location was near 325 Taylor Avenue, strategically chosen for its centrality and coverage capability. However, the board and residents expressed unease about the pole’s conspicuous location near a public park frequently used for community events.

The application detailed that the pole would be fitted with seven antennas and two remote radio heads, adhering to local regulations. Civil engineer Peter Albano, from Collier’s Engineering and Design, presented a photo simulation to illustrate the pole’s integration within the existing landscape. Despite reassurances of compliance and minimal obstruction to pedestrian pathways, the board questioned the necessity of a new pole when existing structures might suffice, though Albano clarified that nearby utility poles were unsuitable due to power line interferences.

Debate intensified around the financial and logistical aspects of the installation, with board members inquiring who would benefit financially and how future installations might be handled. It was clarified that Verizon would benefit from the revenue and any further installations would require separate approvals. Concerns about the potential vacation of Del Avenue for park expansion, which could affect the pole’s legality, were also discussed.

The discussion revealed mixed sentiments about the proposal. While some board members recognized the importance of improved wireless service, others voiced apprehension about the pole’s impact on local aesthetics, safety, and business operations. The proximity to a popular park raised safety concerns, particularly during crowded events, with fears that the pole might obstruct pathways and increase accident risks.

Andrew Peterson, a radio frequency design engineer, provided technical insights, emphasizing the necessity of the installation to offload demand from overloaded antennas on a nearby water tank. Despite the technical justifications, board members remained cautious, balancing these against community concerns.

The conversation also touched on regulatory compliance, specifically the need for signage to alert personnel to potential exposure risks. This signage, described as non-advertising and required for compliance with FCC regulations, sought a waiver due to local restrictions on signs.

Public input further highlighted the controversy. Resident JB Mascal expressed concern over the pole’s obstruction of views for nearby businesses, questioning the adequacy of prior notification regarding the application. The board confirmed that all legal notification requirements had been met.

As the meeting progressed, it became evident that the proposed location might not be ideal. The board considered recommending alternative sites, though procedural constraints and the need for re-notification presented challenges. Ultimately, the board voted on the application, resulting in a failure to approve.

In addition to the Verizon proposal, the board addressed standard business items, including the approval of bills and a resolution for the replacement of paper trees. The meeting concluded without introducing new business, and a motion to adjourn was promptly seconded.