Board tables proposed 120-foot SBA/Verizon tower east of Snowflake after hours of public comment

Navajo County supervisors voted to table a special-use permit for a proposed 120-foot, multi-carrier monopole east of Snowflake after an extended public hearing and requests for more technical and market data.

Planning staff summarized the proposal from SBA Communications and said the tower would sit on a 100-by-100-foot lease area on a 51.16-acre parcel owned by Willis Ranch LLC. Staff said the application met ordinance submittal requirements but noted 14 initial public comments in opposition and additional submissions since the packet was published. Staff flagged three recurring issues raised by commenters: health concerns, perceived incompleteness of the applicant’s materials, and potential impacts to property values. The staff recommendation was approval subject to 13 conditions, with an offer to require additional information if the board found the record insufficient.

Raj Destry of SBA, presenting for the applicant, said Verizon is the tenant and described the site as part of a broader network plan that includes two existing on-air sites and another planned site that together are intended to eliminate a coverage gap along the Concho Highway corridor. Destry said the proposed location keeps the tower away from homes (about 2,200 feet from the nearest residence) while filling coverage along the busy roadway, and offered to provide more granular drive-test data and shift the tower up to 25 feet within the compound to address concerns about nearby cluster mailboxes.

More than a dozen residents spoke against the proposal. Speakers who identified themselves as living in the White Antelope area, including several residents of government-funded, low–electromagnetic-emission housing, described specialized construction used to minimize radio-frequency exposure, said the neighborhood depends on low-EMF features, and warned a tower near the main intersection and mailbox cluster would damage the unique market for that housing. Others disputed the applicant’s coverage maps and said the application did not demonstrate a necessary gap in service, urged the board to require drive-test and drop-call data, and asked the county to evaluate alternate state-land sites or other locations farther from the neighborhood.

County legal counsel told the board that federal law (Telecommunications Act) prohibits denial based on health claims tied to radiofrequency emissions, but that the board may consider coverage evidence and other locally relevant factors, and may require additional studies (including independent third-party review at applicant expense). Staff advised the board that tabling beyond the county’s November meeting could risk automatic administrative approval under the FCC’s 150-day shot clock; staff recommended not extending beyond the November hearing.

After discussion, a supervisor moved to table the item to the November meeting with direction to the applicant and staff to provide additional coverage data (drive tests and more granular RF maps), an assessment of alternate sites and co-location opportunities, information about the number of vehicles/users along the corridor, a review of compliance with County Code 25-21, an independent evaluation option at the applicant’s expense, an analysis of mailbox relocation with USPS, and market-value appraisal information for the special housing. The motion passed; the item will return to the Board in November for further consideration.

The action preserves the board’s ability to consider the matter with supplemental technical and market evidence and gives county staff and legal counsel time to evaluate whether the current application record conforms with ordinance requirements.