Taos County commissioners deny appeal of special-use permit for proposed cell tower after contested hearing

The Taos County Commission on a 3-2 vote on the appeal upheld the planning commission’s approval of a special-use permit for a wireless communications tower proposed near the Royal Hondo area, officials said. The commission voted to deny the appeal of “Special Use Permit 20 four‑thirteen,” affirming the planning commission’s decision.

Commissioners and members of the public spent more than two hours questioning the applicant’s engineers and attorneys about coverage maps, alternative sites, concealment and environmental reviews. Supporters said engineers had shown a coverage gap that required a new tower; opponents disputed the maps’ accuracy, the choice of site and the visual impact on the landscape.

The applicant’s radio-frequency engineer, Steve (RF engineer, Verizon), presented industry-standard propagation modeling and said the proposed tower would address capacity and coverage limitations in the valley. “There’s not enough spectrum. There’s too many users…so terrestrial based carrier networks with towers will be here until Jesus comes back,” Steve said, arguing that satellite solutions cannot replace local towers. He also explained that moving proposed sites farther north would fail to serve users in the town, while moving west would require a taller structure — roughly 195 feet by his estimate — that could trigger Federal Aviation Administration lighting requirements at about 200 feet.

Opponents, led in questioning by a resident identified as Ben (Resident), pressed the applicant on a range of issues: whether colocation on existing structures had been fully considered; whether the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) study accurately located the Atalaya acequia that a public commenter said was closer to the proposed tower than the applicant’s photo suggested; and whether the county’s concealment standards (Taos County Land Use Code Section 4.11.1(c)) were satisfied. The applicant’s attorney (Mr. Francis, Applicant representative) said the submission included certified letters to other carriers offering colocation and that the NEPA process — which included an independent consultant and required signoffs for effects on historic and scenic resources — produced a “clean bill of health.”

Planning staff and the applicant said they found no collocatable structures that met the code’s height and location requirements within the search radius used for the application, and the applicant said they had certified-mail notices to carriers offering the proposed tower for colocation. The applicant described the proposed design as a tapered monopole with a base diameter of about 4 feet that tapers to roughly 24 inches at the top, with lower branch radii of 10–12 feet.

Commissioners also asked technical questions about backhaul and utilities. The applicant’s presenter said two utilities are required for such sites: standard site power (house-service level) and a backhaul connection to the carrier’s switching network — typically fiber or a microwave point-to-point link.

After public hearing and a period of commissioner questions, the commission recessed into executive session to deliberate. On returning, Commissioner Vigil recorded a No vote; Commissioner Romero and Vice Chair Romero recorded Yes votes; Commissioner Brush recorded No; and the chair (recorded as Chair Pasparenas in the roll call) voted Yes, producing a 3‑2 outcome to deny the appeal and affirm the planning commission’s approval.

The record shows substantial disagreement about accuracy and presentation of coverage mapping and the NEPA materials. Several commissioners urged residents to drive the area and verify coverage in person; others emphasized the statutory framework that courts use when reviewing denials — including the “least intrusive” and “effectively prohibit” tests referenced during the hearing.

The commission did not alter the permit conditions on the record; the planning commission’s approval remains in place. County staff said procedural conditions remain: any final site development will require compliance with permits and with any mitigation required by state or federal environmental clearances.

For context, the hearing touched repeatedly on local code provisions raised by opponents: Taos County Land Use Code Section 4.6.1 (suitability/compatibility) and Section 4.11.1(c) (concealment criteria). The applicant and staff said the record included evidence to show a substantial public‑safety and service need that the applicant argued outweighed some compatibility concerns under the code’s “or” provisions.

The commission’s decision affirms the planning commission’s authorization for the applicant to proceed under the special‑use permit framework. Further procedural steps — including final engineering, required permits, and any required FCC clearances tied to NEPA approvals — remain in the project schedule.

Speakers at the hearing included sworn county staff, the applicant’s representatives and dozens of public commenters who questioned or supported the project; cross‑examination and technical presentation took place during the applicant’s case in chief and the subsequent public comment period. The commission’s formal motion to deny the appeal followed closed‑session deliberations and a public roll call vote.

Ending: The commission’s action preserves the planning commission’s approval; any future applications for modifications, additional conditions, or legal challenges would be matters for subsequent hearings or court review if initiated.