Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
La Paz County supervisors deny conditional use permit for proposed 149-foot wireless tower near Holiday Harbor
Loading...
Summary
The La Paz County Board of Supervisors voted April 6 to deny Docket CUP2026-01, a conditional use permit for a 149-foot wireless communications tower on parcel 310-27-017D, after public comment and a unanimous Planning & Zoning recommendation to deny.
La Paz County supervisors voted April 6 to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed 149-foot wireless communications tower on parcel 310-27-017D near Holiday Harbor and Buckskin Valley.
During a public hearing on Docket CUP2026-01, Lonnie Lewis, a Buckskin Valley resident and Holiday Harbor homeowners association board member, urged denial and delivered a written statement raising multiple concerns. "We respectfully submit our formal opposition to the proposed construction of a cell tower within our community," Lewis said, citing what he described as a lack of demonstrated need, possible property-value impacts, health concerns about radio-frequency exposure and the risk of structural failure near residences.
County staff told the board the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended denial at its March 5 meeting. Chair and District 2 Supervisor Deuce Minor told colleagues he had inspected the area and said the proposed tower site "would be in somebody's backyard," and he signaled he planned to oppose the permit. Minor and other supervisors also referenced previously approved and planned towers in the area, noting that carriers commonly use anchor tenants and allow collocation on towers, which can extend coverage without adding separate structures for each provider.
The property owners, Dana and Linda Robertson, and the agent listed in the application (Misty Hunter with SmartLink Group) were noted in the record; staff also reported a property-owner request for a continuance to clarify agent conversations but said the Planning and Zoning recommendation and application materials were before the board.
After discussion, the board moved to deny CUP2026-01 for parcel 310-27-017D. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the chairman announced the motion carries and the permit was denied.
The denial follows the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and public opposition from nearby residents. The board did not identify a subsequent appeal or next procedural step in the public record during the meeting.
