Citizen Portal
Sign In

After heated public comment, Mohave County delays decision on 195‑foot Valvesta cell tower and will hire independent RF reviewer

Mohave County Board of Supervisors · January 19, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents opposed a proposed 195‑foot wireless tower near Kingman, citing visual impacts, property‑value and RF health concerns. Sun State Tower and RF consultants said the site is needed for microwave backhaul; the board voted to continue the item and have county staff procure independent RF expertise.

A contested special‑use permit for a 195‑foot wireless communications tower in the Valvesta area prompted a lengthy public hearing and a decision to delay any final action while the county secures outside technical review.

Residents living near the proposed site described the tower as a “monstrosity” that would mar scenic views and depress property values. Jill Martin, who lives adjacent to the parcel, told the board the proposal would “permanently scar” the front view of her home and argued there was no demonstrated gap in coverage at her location.

Opponents raised health concerns linked to long‑term radiofrequency exposure and cited studies and classifications by international bodies; speakers also complained about inconsistent or missing mailed notice of the hearings. Several neighbors said earlier votes had denied similar proposals and questioned why the item returned to the board.

Sun State Tower representatives and their retained RF engineer described technical reasons the site was selected, saying the parcel provides a necessary microwave backhaul path and enables a previously approved southeastern site to operate. “This site is going to be a donor site to allow for the communication link for the other site to be able to make it back to the switching center,” consultant Stephen Kennedy said. Applicant counsel said carriers must meet FCC and FAA rules and that the FAA has made a 'no hazard' determination for the site.

Several supervisors said the board depends on applicant‑provided technical analyses and lacks in‑house radio‑frequency expertise. The board voted to continue the item and directed county staff to solicit and procure an independent, on‑call RF site engineer to review the applicant’s coverage/backhaul claims and report findings to the board before taking final action.

The continuance means no permit is approved; the applicant and objectors will have another opportunity to present after the county completes the independent review.