House committee opens probe into Dorado telecom tower permitting

The House Commission on Economic Development on June 24 heard testimony and opened an inquiry into the permitting, siting and construction process for a telecommunications tower in the Mameyal barrio of Dorado.

Committee members heard agency summaries and community concerns that a construction permit originally issued in 2022 was later voided by the appeals court, yet activity and a separate “permit of use” followed. The Office of Permits (OGPe) and the Puerto Rico Planning Board described overlapping administrative reviews and said further action should await completion of ongoing administrative steps.

The measure under review is House Resolution 178, authored by Representative Elineth González Aguayo. The Office of Permits’ written chronology presented to the committee shows that IT Towers LLC (through engineer Francisco Rivera Torres) filed a construction permit application on Jan. 27, 2022. OGPe issued a construction permit on Sept. 27, 2022 and notified parties on Sept. 29, 2022. The municipality of Dorado requested administrative review Oct. 19, 2022. The OGPe’s administrative review division denied relief on Feb. 16, 2023; the appeals court later revoked the administrative determination and set aside the construction permit because, the court said, the tourism authority’s written recommendation required by Law 374 (May 14, 1949) was missing and the property is in a zone of tourist interest.

The committee heard that on Feb. 9, 2025 Elite Towers LLC submitted a new construction-permit application for the same site. OGPe issued a subsanation request (a request for missing documentation) on May 9, 2025 and the proponent had not supplied the required materials as of the committee hearing. OGPe and the Planning Board reiterated their openness to provide documents to the committee and recommended coordination between agencies.

Representatives and residents said they observed the tower in operation during a site visit. When asked whether the facility had fulfilled permitting requirements, Miguel Mijayevich, an attorney with the Office of Permits, replied, “Entiendo que no.” José Airán Díaz, legislation officer at the Planning Board, told the committee that "entendemos que cualquier acción o determinación adicional debe posponerse hasta que se concluya el procedimiento ante el foro administrativo correspondiente." Representative González Aguayo, who said she represents residents near the tower, told the committee, “Yo soy de esa comunidad.”

Agency witnesses told the committee that different parts of the review fall to different authorities. OGPe described the single-business-portal case history and the issuance/revocation sequence; the Planning Board noted that, under Law 161 of 2009, it has auditing and judicial-remedy roles but that its auditing jurisdiction is limited by time and procedure. Planning-board staff said some actions can be pursued in court under Article 14.1 of Law 161 once administrative remedies conclude.

The committee pressed OGPe and the Planning Board to provide records. Members asked OGPe to report back with the status of the proponent’s subsanation and any supporting documents, and set a follow-up deadline: OGPe was asked to notify the committee of the case status no later than July 17, 2025. The commission also requested Planning Board comments and copies of related administrative and judicial filings. No formal vote was recorded; the hearing functioned as the investigatory step under House Resolution 178.

What happens next: the committee requested agency records and said it will reconvene or otherwise review the materials once agencies deliver the requested files. The hearing transcript records multiple requests for documentary evidence, a site-measurement requirement (an agrimensor survey to verify distances from nearby structures), and continued administrative review by OGPe at the time of the hearing.