Planning commission recommends 199‑ft telecom tower after split public debate

The Morrison County Planning Commission voted 3‑2 on April 14 to recommend that the County Board approve a conditional use permit for a 199‑foot telecommunications tower proposed by Vertical Bridge for a parcel east of Pierce city limits.

Darren, Land Services staff, described the proposal as a 195‑foot self‑supported tower with a 4‑foot lightning rod (199 ft total), mounted on a 75‑by‑75‑foot fenced compound on an 80‑acre parcel owned by the Vernig Revocable Trust. The FAA review required no notice for the site, staff said.

Vertical Bridge representative Alex Truman told the commission that RF emissions are regulated by federal and state agencies, and said the tower’s base measurement would be well under FCC limits. "The tower measured at the base will be at 50% of what the FCC's allowable amount is," Truman said, and added that NEPA review addresses bird flight paths, nesting and other environmental constraints.

Several neighbors’ written and in‑person comments opposed the project. A letter read into the record raised questions about property‑value impacts, testing and reporting of radiation measurements, access in extreme weather, river‑bottom and migratory‑bird impacts and potential effects on nearby eagle nesting. Public commenters voiced similar concerns: Katie Boeser said she opposed the tower and urged clearer public notice and stronger monitoring or reporting standards; Jaron Bowser, an adjoining landowner, said the tower would be directly west of land where his family hopes to build and worried about constant exposure and lost views; Eileen Poelkamp asked about possible effects on schoolchildren.

Commission discussion focused on siting, noise and technical constraints. Vertical Bridge said generators would run only briefly for monthly testing at noise levels below 65 decibels and that the company is responsible for removal if a facility becomes obsolete. The applicant said carrier‑level modeling constrains shifting the site substantially and that wetlands and environmental features limit alternate placements.

Commissioners split when answering whether the use would be detrimental to immediate neighbors: two commissioners said yes, three said no. The commission nevertheless answered the five code criteria overall in the affirmative and, on a motion by Commissioner Clint (seconded by Commissioner Brent), voted to recommend approval to the County Board. The roll call recorded two nays and three ayes. The matter is scheduled for the County Board meeting on April 21, 2026.

The planning action is a recommendation only; the County Board will make the final decision.