Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board OKs 17-foot extension to Hidden Valley tower to add T‑Mobile coverage
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved an amendment to a special use permit to allow a 17-foot height extension and new equipment cabinets at the Hidden Valley monopole tower (WAC26-0002), enabling T‑Mobile to add coverage; staff found required findings could be made and recommended approval with conditions.
The Washoe County Board of Adjustment voted April 2 to approve an amendment of conditions allowing a 17-foot extension and equipment upgrades at a monopole wireless tower in Hidden Valley, a change intended to accommodate additional carrier equipment and improve service coverage.
Planner Julie Olander explained the request to amend special use permit USUP170025 so the existing monopole tower could increase by 17 feet and host six additional antennas and two ground-level equipment cabinets. The tower sits in a parks (PR) zoning district; Olander walked the board through the code allowances for tower height (a base 65-foot allowance with additional feet for significant gap coverage and stealth design), and said staff's calculation would allow a theoretical maximum near 91 feet though the applicant proposed 87 feet.
Olander said the site was noticed to parcels within 500 feet (413 notices sent) and that staff received no emails or phone calls raising objections. She described the nearest dwelling as roughly 280 feet from the tower location in the maintenance yard of Hidden Valley Golf Course and said agency comments and conditions are recorded in the staff report exhibits.
Philip Thomas, representing T‑Mobile, said T‑Mobile currently has no presence at that site and the added height and equipment will allow the carrier to provide coverage there; he said existing carriers on the tower include Verizon and AT&T. Thomas added that the tower cannot practically be raised much further and that the change is needed to meet emissions spacing and coverage parameters.
A board member moved and the board seconded approval of the amendment subject to the conditions in Exhibit A; the motion carried.
No public comment was recorded in chambers or via Zoom on this item. The board's approval allows the applicant to proceed consistent with the permit conditions and applicable code; parties retain appeal rights per county procedure.
