Putnam County zoning board approves 265-foot cell tower after residents urge denial
April 16, 2026 | Putnam County, Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Putnam County Zoning Board of Adjustments voted to approve Special Use Permit 26-000003 on the application of Next Tower Development Group to build a 265-foot communications tower on a 42.99-acre parcel west of West River Road in Palatka.
Staff planning presenter Ethan Thompson told the board the application meets the Land Development Code’s special-use criteria and supplemental regulations for communication towers, and staff recommended approval subject to conditions including Development Review Committee (DRC) sign-off, federal and state permits, and a surety equal to 150% of estimated tower-dismantling costs. Staff also noted the site plan locates the tower outside delineated jurisdictional wetlands, depicts a proposed 6,400-square-foot lease area, and shows a certified 50-foot fall zone around the base.
The developer’s representative, Darren Taylor of Holtzman Vogel, and agent Joel Russo of Next Tower said propagation maps show a coverage gap that the proposed tower would fill for T‑Mobile and could host additional carriers. They told the board wetlands delineations by Terracon constrained where a tower could be sited on the parcel and that moving the base farther west would likely trigger Army Corps permitting and substantial delay.
Dozens of residents turned out to oppose the project during a lengthy public‑comment period. Speakers including Kathleen Kelch, Kimberly Guthrie Rhymes and Wyatt Kelch said notice and the staff packet gave neighbors little time to review materials, expressed concern about a tower’s visibility from homes and the riverfront, and argued the proposal would undermine residential character and reduce property values. Several residents cited the county’s 750‑foot setback requirement and urged the board to deny any reduction; one resident requested a stealth design (a mono‑pine) if the board approved the tower.
Other speakers raised environmental and health concerns. Multiple residents questioned whether the staff materials accurately represented current and future land‑use maps and alleged the site plans used misleading photo simulations. Aaron Smith also presented multiple studies and corporate filings and urged a 500‑meter buffer citing electromagnetic‑field health claims. Applicant counsel responded that federal law limits local governments from denying siting permits on the basis of health concerns and that siting decisions must be guided by land‑use criteria in the county code.
The board debated the application and, after motions and discussion that at one point produced a tie vote, ultimately approved the special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff and authorized the chair to sign the final order. The board noted the 30‑day appeal period under county rules.
Separately, staff presented Variance 26-000002, a request to reduce the required 750‑foot setback from the nearest residentially zoned property line to 298 feet 6 inches for the same project. Following additional resident testimony opposing the variance, the applicant asked to withdraw the variance application; the chair accepted the withdrawal and the variance was not decided at this meeting. The applicant may reapply with revised site information in the future.
The board recorded the special‑use approval and reminded the public that decisions can be appealed to the circuit court within 30 days.
Staff planning presenter Ethan Thompson told the board the application meets the Land Development Code’s special-use criteria and supplemental regulations for communication towers, and staff recommended approval subject to conditions including Development Review Committee (DRC) sign-off, federal and state permits, and a surety equal to 150% of estimated tower-dismantling costs. Staff also noted the site plan locates the tower outside delineated jurisdictional wetlands, depicts a proposed 6,400-square-foot lease area, and shows a certified 50-foot fall zone around the base.
The developer’s representative, Darren Taylor of Holtzman Vogel, and agent Joel Russo of Next Tower said propagation maps show a coverage gap that the proposed tower would fill for T‑Mobile and could host additional carriers. They told the board wetlands delineations by Terracon constrained where a tower could be sited on the parcel and that moving the base farther west would likely trigger Army Corps permitting and substantial delay.
Dozens of residents turned out to oppose the project during a lengthy public‑comment period. Speakers including Kathleen Kelch, Kimberly Guthrie Rhymes and Wyatt Kelch said notice and the staff packet gave neighbors little time to review materials, expressed concern about a tower’s visibility from homes and the riverfront, and argued the proposal would undermine residential character and reduce property values. Several residents cited the county’s 750‑foot setback requirement and urged the board to deny any reduction; one resident requested a stealth design (a mono‑pine) if the board approved the tower.
Other speakers raised environmental and health concerns. Multiple residents questioned whether the staff materials accurately represented current and future land‑use maps and alleged the site plans used misleading photo simulations. Aaron Smith also presented multiple studies and corporate filings and urged a 500‑meter buffer citing electromagnetic‑field health claims. Applicant counsel responded that federal law limits local governments from denying siting permits on the basis of health concerns and that siting decisions must be guided by land‑use criteria in the county code.
The board debated the application and, after motions and discussion that at one point produced a tie vote, ultimately approved the special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff and authorized the chair to sign the final order. The board noted the 30‑day appeal period under county rules.
Separately, staff presented Variance 26-000002, a request to reduce the required 750‑foot setback from the nearest residentially zoned property line to 298 feet 6 inches for the same project. Following additional resident testimony opposing the variance, the applicant asked to withdraw the variance application; the chair accepted the withdrawal and the variance was not decided at this meeting. The applicant may reapply with revised site information in the future.
The board recorded the special‑use approval and reminded the public that decisions can be appealed to the circuit court within 30 days.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
