Ravalli County hearing over proposed Black Bear Lane cell tower centers on spacing exception, coverage and local impacts

Ravalli County commissioners on April 11 heard detailed testimony on a proposed wireless communication facility at 302 Black Bear Lane, west of Hamilton, that would require an exception to the county’s one‑mile spacing rule for towers. Planning staff recommended approval subject to granting the spacing exception; representatives for Vertical Bridge and T‑Mobile said the new tower is needed to close a local gap in in‑building wireless coverage. Residents asked the board to delay a final decision while a balloon test and additional notice are arranged.

The hearing matter, filed as permit WCFP 24‑10, was presented by Rob Livisay of the Ravalli County Planning Department. Livisay told commissioners the application was submitted Sept. 4, underwent a seven‑month review with four rounds of planning comments and was found “sufficient” by staff on March 14. He said the county’s Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance No. 13 (section 4) requires any new tower over 60 feet to be at least 5,280 feet (one mile) from another tower unless the applicant demonstrates co‑location is scientifically unfeasible and a unique hardship exists.

Meredith Pabst of Wireless Policy Group, representing Vertical Bridge, and Matt Russo of T‑Mobile described technical studies the applicant submitted to meet that exception. Pabst said the applicant’s alternative‑site and engineering reports "show colocation is not feasible, and it shows that there's a hardship caused by colocation because it would degrade T‑Mobile's existing service." Drew Thatcher, an RF consultant on the project, testified by video that trying to use the existing Grubstake tower would create interference and reduce network efficiency because of the large elevation difference.

T‑Mobile’s RF analysis — shown in propagation maps and population estimates in the application — projects a net increase of about 2,774 people who would receive the stronger signal level deemed necessary for reliable in‑building service if the proposed site is built and activated. The applicant also submitted photo simulations, a Federal Aviation Administration determination of no hazard, a radio‑frequency compliance report prepared by a Montana‑licensed engineer and an alternatives analysis documenting outreach to roughly 29 nearby property owners.

Vertical Bridge said it mailed certified letters to nearby parcels and followed other industry‑standard steps to identify alternative sites. Ben Marcus, the company’s site acquisition specialist, summarized parcels that were disqualified for reasons ranging from poor screening to lack of utilities or wet areas. The applicant also offered conditions it said would reduce community impacts: paint and conceal the top of the structure to match surrounding trees, not light the tower, comply with erosion‑control BMPs during construction, repair any private‑road damage caused by construction traffic and offer complimentary space on the tower to volunteer fire and sheriff offices for public‑safety equipment.

Residents and landowners speaking at the hearing raised a range of objections. Randy Stewart said he feared property values would decline: "I do believe... the value of our property will be devalued by having a cell tower there," and asked the county to weigh economic effects. Sven Lovstrom, who said he built a new home above the proposed site, told commissioners the location "has been my life savings" and urged more consideration of views from homes above the hill. Glenda Wiles, who said her house is about 920 feet from the marked tower location, told the board she saw the red balloon used during a prior photo‑simulation field test and found it highly visible.

Other speakers pressed the county on wildfire and wildlife risks, well and watershed impacts, and private‑road wear from construction traffic. Several asked the board to consider Starlink (satellite‑based) service or other alternatives; the applicant responded that Starlink does not meet T‑Mobile’s in‑building and capacity objectives and that federal law prevents local governments from basing denials on environmental or RF health concerns if the facility complies with FCC rules.

Commissioners and county counsel discussed federal preemption and recent case law; Livisay and other staff noted courts apply a two‑part test that weighs whether local decisions are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether a proposed facility would close a "significant gap" in coverage by the "least intrusive means." Planning staff said the current application, unlike a 2023 proposal for the same site (WCFP 23‑2), supplied additional technical evidence staff found sufficient to support the exception criteria.

Several residents requested a repeat of a field balloon test so property owners can photograph the tower height from private viewpoints; the applicant agreed to work with staff on protocols for a balloon test and to extend the permit review tolling agreement (the "shot‑clock" deadline). County staff said they would expand mailed notice (certified to 300 feet, then regular mailing to one mile) and coordinate dates. No final decision or vote was taken at the hearing; commissioners left the record open and indicated a continuance to allow the balloon test, additional notice and written responses to specific questions from residents and staff.

The packet for the hearing and the applicant’s technical reports remain in the planning record. Commissioners scheduled further consideration after the applicant and staff complete the additional field testing and notification steps requested at the April 11 hearing.