Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Tower topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County consultant recommends approval of Western New Mexico Communications’ 150-foot Cliff tower, with setback variance requested
Summary
County consultant Dean Williamson told commissioners a proposed 150-foot monopole near Cliff would fill a coverage gap and meets ordinance submission requirements but needs a setback variance; one adjacent owner supports the variance and staff recommended approval, with final action scheduled for the regular meeting.
Dean Williamson, the county’s tower consultant with Wireless Tower Solutions, recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve Western New Mexico Communications’ application for a 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower near Cliff — provided the board grants ordinance relief for a setback that the proposed site does not meet.
Williamson told the commissioners staff had performed the required alternative-site and coverage-gap analyses and found no suitable colocation sites within the ordinance’s search radius. He said the county ordinance requires a setback equal to tower height plus 10% (165 feet for a 150-foot tower) and the proposed tower falls short of that distance; the applicant therefore requested ordinance relief. ‘‘They are requesting ordinance relief on that,’’ Williamson said, recommending approval of the application with that relief.
The consultant summarized the technical package submitted with the application: a structural analysis showing the monopole has roughly 20–22% structural margin and capacity to accept additional colocators; a soil report after a 50-foot bore; proof of a state contractor license; insurance certificates and a $75,000 bond per the ordinance; and certified-mail notice to 32 adjacent property owners within the 1,500-foot notification radius. Williamson also said an adjacent property owner to the north, Mr. Baxter, wrote a letter saying he is aware of the setback issue and approves the requested variance.
On public-safety concerns, Williamson said the applicant’s non‑ionizing radiation report found no occupational or public-health risk at ground level: ‘‘the bottom line for an average person to get any radiation from that antenna, they would have to climb up to 150 feet and be within a third or two of the antenna to receive any radiation that’s dangerous whatsoever,’’ he said, and noted standard caution signage at the facility entrance would be required.
During questioning, commissioners asked who approves ordinance relief and whether the board could combine approval of the project and the variance. Williamson explained applicants may request ordinance relief and the commission may grant or deny it; several commissioners said they preferred a single motion covering both the project and the setback variance to avoid separate votes.
Local resident Shelly Garrett told the board he supported the project because cell service in portions of the valley is ‘‘pretty spotty’’ and said residents frequently drive to the communications yard to make calls. Williamson said he expects coverage could extend several miles in favorable directions but that detailed signal‑propagation maps from larger carriers were not included with this application.
No final vote on the tower application was recorded during the work session. The item was listed as Item K on the regular meeting agenda for the Thursday meeting, where the commission will be asked to approve or disapprove the application and the requested setback variance.
What happens next: The application and variance request will be before the commission at the regular meeting for a formal action; staff will make application materials available and will report any additional public comments received.
