Navajo County denies SBA/Verizon special-use permit for White Antelope cell tower after residents, lawyers and board raise ADA and property-value concerns

The Navajo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a special-use permit requested by SBA Communications and proposed to host Verizon at the intersection of Concho Highway and White Antelope.

Supervisor Seymour moved to deny the application, citing testimony from neighbors, evidence about potential property-value impacts and the need to evaluate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues; the board seconded the motion and authorized staff to prepare written findings of fact supporting the decision for appellate and federal review. "Imove that we deny this request at this time, based upon the testimony that we've heard and the materials that have been supplied to us, and direct staff to prepare a written statement concerning our findings of fact," Supervisor Seymour said before the vote.

The item produced the meeting's longest public hearing. Applicants and county planning staff presented follow-up materials after a prior hearing, including traffic counts, appraisal outreach and radio-frequency (RF) drive-test data intended to demonstrate a gap in cellular coverage. SBA representatives said the post-hearing work showed the site was justified as the least-intrusive means to provide coverage, that Verizon would be the anchor tenant and that the proposed monopole would allow other carriers to co-locate.

Many residents, realtors and disability advocates told the board the site was inappropriate. Speakers who live within or near the White Antelope community said the neighborhood contains a cluster of specially constructed residences for people who assert electromagnetic sensitivity and that building a 120-foot monopole there would damage the community's character and property values. "We are telling you that we don't want it, don't need it, and that should be enough for you to deny the application," one nearby resident said during public comment. Several realtors testified that comparable sales data and local market dynamics could produce large percentage declines in resale values if the tower were constructed.

Legal counsel and staff briefed supervisors on how to preserve a record in case the telecommunications company challenged a denial under the federal Telecommunications Act and on the FCC's administrative "shot clock," which treats an application as administratively approved if a decision is not issued before the statutory deadline. Planning staff confirmed that, absent a board action with supporting written findings, federal rules could allow the applicant to proceed administratively. County legal counsel advised what items the written findings should address, including whether residents near the site qualify for ADA protections and whether denying the permit would constitute a reasonable and necessary accommodation.

The board's motion directs staff and legal counsel to prepare a written determination addressing (at minimum) the board's factual findings on coverage need, whether the applicant proved the proposed location is the least-intrusive means of resolving any demonstrated service gap, the potential for substantial property-value impacts shown by testimony, and the ADA-related questions raised by residents and submitted materials. Supervisors noted existing approvals for other nearby towers (Black Mesa and Snowflake Heights) are not yet operational and that these outstanding projects affect the analysis of coverage need.

With the unanimous vote to deny, staff now must produce the written findings before the FCC shot-clock date so the board's reasons are recorded if the telecommunications company seeks review.

What happens next: staff and legal counsel will prepare the findings of fact and, if necessary, the county will defend its decision if challenged in court or before federal regulators. The board's action does not itself block the applicant from pursuing administrative approvals or federal remedies; it creates the county's official rationale for denial and documents the ADA and property-value concerns that guided the decision.