A dilemma: Two tower requests Series: NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT; CARROLLWOOD

[STATE Edition]
St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Fla.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/73050866.html?
dids=73050866:73050866&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+29%
2C+2001&author=TIM+GRANT&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition
=&startpage=8&desc=A+dilemma%3A+Two+tower+requests+Series%
3A+NEIGHBORHOOD+REPORT%3B+CARROLLWOOD

Two companies have asked to build separate cellular phone towers along Bearss Avenue. Only one, if any, may be needed.

While there is no indication that either of the two companies was aware of the other's application, Nextel Communications and HDR Engineering both filed their requests on April 17, apparently at the same time of day.

According to their special-use permit applications, the towers would be built within a half-mile of each other.

The tower requested by HDR Engineering would rise 195 feet over the orange grove at Bearss Avenue and Lake Magdalene Boulevard. Nextel Communications wants to erect a 140-foot monopole tower at the Iglesia Bautista de Carrollwood Baptist Church at 2905 Smitter Road.

Hillsborough zoning officials must decide if a new tower is needed. This is also the first known instance in which planners will have to consider which of two companies should be given the right to build it.

Both petitions will be heard by a land-use hearing officer on June 8.

Representatives from Nextel did not return telephone messages seeking comment last week.

Steve Sullivan, a project manager for Crown Castle International, which hired HDR Engineering to file the application, said Crown Castle was not aware of the other tower proposal. Sullivan said he would be willing to work with Nextel to avoid adding towers unnecessarily.

"This is an interesting dilemma," said Mike Allgire, a manager in the county's Planning & Growth Management department. "The smart thing to do would be for both of them to get together and seek one request."

The county's land development code requires companies that build cellular phone towers to prove that there are no other towers in the proposed site area where they could mount an antenna rather than build a new tower.

Allgire said the hearing officer could approve both towers, or deny one or both. He said the hearing officer might also require them to file a joint application for one site.

Allgire said a comparison of the search rings provided in each application shows that their coverage areas overlap and that they could effectively use the same towers.

But there is a huge financial stake in which company gets the tower approval.

The company that wins the approval to build would be a landlord, while other cellular phone carriers that lease space on that tower to mount their antennaes would pay rent to the owner.

The financial incentive to own a tower has become so great in the past two years that most applications for new towers are filed by tower providers rather than cellular carriers.

"Those cell towers are like cash cows for the owners," said Tom Aderhold, a citizen activist who has helped write amendments to the county's land development code to regulate towers.

Aderhold said the industry has set a standard of a 2-mile radius around towers and antennae to avoid disruption of cell phone service. Aderhold said he can see no reason why both these towers would be approved.

"I would be the last person to argue against the cellular industry," said Aderhold, who made his comments while talking on a cell phone. "I keep an eye on the wolves of the industry.

"Sometimes people who build towers put them in places they don't belong. Other than that, I love them."

- To reach Tim Grant, call 226-3471.