The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommended approval Wednesday of a use permit allowing AT&T to install a 75-foot disguised cell tower — called a “mono‑eucalyptus” — and related equipment compound at 3377 West Cactus Avenue.

AT&T’s representative, Rich Compton, said the company was seeking a variance from required setbacks because the property was too narrow to meet the site’s nominal 1:1 setback requirement. “This is a 75 foot tower located at 3377 West Cactus Avenue,” Compton said. “We are requesting a use permit for setbacks of 8 feet because the setback in this area is 2 to 1, which means we would require a 150 foot setback.”

Compton showed the board before‑and‑after images of the site and described the stealth design and technical details: the equipment compound will be roughly 30 by 15 feet (about 450 square feet) and the pole is engineered to accept two or three carriers. He described the monopole as designed to meet building and safety codes and said towers are engineered and rated for winds up to 125 miles per hour. Compton also addressed electromagnetic safety: “These towers go through a vigorous, robust test and calculations to make sure that it is safe in terms of electromagnetic energy as far as FCC regulated standards and OSHA standards,” he said.

Board members asked about the setback numbers reported by staff and about safety details including lightning protection and foundation size. One board member noted the staff report listed a 9‑foot setback while Title 30 setback guidance implied a much larger separation; Compton replied that the company had “scrubbed every lot” near the site and said no alternative lot and lease arrangement would meet the standard 150‑foot setback.

After discussion the board moved to recommend approval. A motion to approve the use permit was made and carried.

Why it matters: the site is adjacent to a busy freeway exit and AT&T’s materials showed a radio‑frequency “propagation” map that, the company said, filled a coverage hole along the Dean Martin/Cactus exit. Residents and board members who asked questions framed them primarily as safety, visual, and precedent concerns rather than opposing coverage benefits.

What’s next: the advisory board’s recommendation will be forwarded to county authorities for final action. The permit and variance approval carry typical follow‑up conditions and building‑permit reviews required by Clark County.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who appeared in the meeting record.