Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds appeal and overturns zoning approval for Dogbar Road monopine after contested hearing
Summary
After hours of testimony and technical presentations, the Board of Supervisors voted to uphold an appeal and overturn the zoning administrator’s approval of a 129‑ft monopine cell tower at 20896 Dogbar Road, reversing the permit by a recorded roll call vote (motion passed 4–1).
After more than two hours of technical presentations, photo simulations, public comment and legal briefing on Aug. 20, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted to uphold an appeal and overturn the zoning administrator’s June 12 approval of a conditional use permit for a 129‑foot “monopine” wireless facility at 20896 Dogbar Road.
What happened: The appeal arose after neighbors and the property owner’s opponents raised concerns about the proposed monopine’s proximity to residences, visual impacts, the sufficiency of Verizon’s drive tests and propagation data, potential effects on property values and questions about perceived health risks. Appellants argued that Verizon had not demonstrated a significant network gap that required a new tower at that location, questioned the most recent drive‑test methodology and objected to last‑minute corrections to the site plan that shifted the tower closer to a southern property line.
Verizon’s case: Verizon and its consultants presented radio‑frequency (RF) engineering reports, TrueCall device‑level drive‑test data, photo‑simulations produced by a licensed landscape architect, and an RF‑safety memorandum certified by an electrical engineer. Verizon’s RF engineer said the new site would provide roughly 21 square miles and serve about 6,900 additional people in combination with adjacent sites, improving both low‑band (longer‑range voice) and mid‑band (higher‑capacity data) coverage and offloading capacity from more distant sectors.
Appellants’ case: Appellants and dozens of residents said the monopine would be too close to homes (one neighboring house’s fence line was described as only about 100–140 feet from the proposed facility), would be highly visible when trees are naked in winter, could depress property values and raised unresolved questions about RF exposure and tower safety. Appellants also disputed the sufficiency and timing of Verizon’s drive tests and said alternative, less‑intrusive sites had not been adequately explored.
Board action: After extended public comment and deliberation, a majority of supervisors said the evidence provided by Verizon did not justify siting the facility in the proposed backyard location and that the project’s justifications and alternatives were not sufficiently persuasive. The board member making the motion to uphold the appeal cited insufficient demonstrated need at this site and proximity to occupied residences. The motion carried by roll call (four supervisors in favor, one opposed).
Outcome and next steps: The board’s vote overturns the planning decision and denies the conditional use permit for the monopine at the proposed location. The resolution records the overturning of the zoning administrator’s approval and adoption of the appeal. Verizon may choose to revise the application, present new technical evidence, or pursue legal options; the company’s consultants maintained their RF and safety analyses meet federal standards. The county planning department noted the board’s action is based on the administrative record and its interpretation of local code and the evidence submitted.
