Board denies 195‑foot cell tower permit after widespread resident opposition in Dolan Springs

The Mohave County Board of Supervisors voted April 7 to deny a special use permit for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility and 195‑foot tower in the Dolan Springs area after residents and the Planning and Zoning Commission registered opposition.

Neighbors said the tower would be an eyesore, raise safety concerns in a high fire‑risk area, and reduce property values. Several speakers testified that existing options such as Starlink and current carriers met their needs and that the landowner where the tower was proposed is not a local resident. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial by unanimous vote.

Attorney Jason Mitchell, speaking for county staff at the meeting, advised the board that federal law — the Telecommunications Act of 1996 — limits the grounds on which a local government can deny a wireless facility. He said courts have rejected denials based on radio frequency emissions or general health concerns; however, he said local boards can deny permits on other lawful grounds such as visual impact or failure to meet technical standards. Mitchell also warned that denials must be supported on the record with specific reasons.

Applicant representatives from the tower company said coverage maps submitted with the application showed expanded service north and east of Dolan Springs and argued the height and location were chosen so multiple carriers could co‑locate on a single facility. Residents disputed the need, saying coverage in the community was acceptable and that the tower would mostly serve federal land areas beyond the town. Board members likewise questioned whether the applicant had exhausted nearby private sites and whether the carrier demand justified the tower.

Supervisor Martin moved to deny the permit; the motion carried. Board members discussed a mix of reasons on the record, including the project’s visual impact, neighborhood opposition and insufficient demonstration of local need. The board’s legal adviser cautioned that denials should avoid prohibited bases such as RF emissions and should articulate the specific land‑use reasons for denial.

Ending: The board denied the special use permit; the Planning and Zoning Commission record and the board’s reasons will guide next steps for any appeal or resubmission.