Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves ICON Towers permit after contentious hearing, 4‑1
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and legal briefing on federal preemption, the Anaconda Deer Lodge County Commission approved a major development permit for ICON Towers by a 4‑1 vote. Opponents raised aesthetic, property‑value and wildlife concerns while supporters and a resident cited emergency‑response and coverage gaps.
Anaconda — The Anaconda Deer Lodge County Commission voted 4‑1 to approve a major development permit submitted by SmartLink on behalf of ICON Towers after an extended public hearing in which residents, county staff and the applicant presented opposing views on necessity, aesthetics and legal risk.
The commission’s legal and staff briefing emphasized federal limits on local authority. CEO Everett said the county could not deny permits on health grounds and warned of legal exposure if denials were based on non‑expert claims. "Legally, guys, we cannot even discuss that. That is a federal law," Everett said, urging caution and further legal review of any denial grounded in health or non‑expert assertions.
Opponents urged the commission to delay or deny the permit on aesthetic and environmental grounds. Commissioner Bodette, who argued against approval, pointed to planning‑board testimony and contested the applicant’s showing of coverage gaps: "ICON Tower has not provided any evidence that they have searched for other alternative sites and that this is the only feasible site," Bodette said, adding that testimony to date did not demonstrate a substantial denial of service.
Several nearby residents described concerns about views and property values and asked the county to consider alternatives such as camouflaged design. Jeffrey Miles suggested presenting faux‑tree or disguised structures to the applicant as a compromise. Rosanna Peters urged the commission to seek Fish, Wildlife and Parks input on elk calving areas near the proposed site.
Supporters and the applicant said the tower would address real coverage and safety issues. Jessie Sather, who said she had been seriously injured in a crash on Galen Road, described a delayed or failed 911 call at the scene and framed improved coverage as a public‑safety need: "The first 911 call that actually came came from a neighbor who heard the accident… the person on scene could not get her cell phone to connect to the cell network and complete the 911 call," Sather said.
An attorney representing ICON Towers summarized the application history, noting planning‑board review, updated aesthetics, an FAA letter confirming no tower lighting requirement and interest from a carrier for colocation. He asked the commission to "please follow the law and approve us tonight," saying the application complied with major‑development permit requirements.
Commissioners debated whether the administrative record and applicant submissions met federal and Ninth Circuit standards for denial. After discussion and a roll‑call vote, the permit was approved 4‑1; the record reflects that Commissioner Bodette voted in opposition.
The decision allows ICON Towers to proceed under the permit conditions set by county planning staff; commissioners noted the applicant may return with additional material if it seeks further modifications. No timetable for construction was discussed during the meeting.
