Pima County board upholds appeal, denies 150‑foot cell tower near Diamond Bell Ranch

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 to support an appeal and deny the permit for a proposed 150‑foot telecommunications tower proposed for a CB1 parcel adjacent to the Diamond Bell Ranch subdivision.

Deputy Director of Development Services Tom Drazkowski opened the public hearing on the appeal (P26C00002), saying the hearing administrator had approved a 150‑foot tower in the CB1 zone and noting the administrative record included coverage maps and materials submitted by the applicant. Residents and property owners from Diamond Bell Ranch urged the board to reverse that approval, arguing the record did not identify or analyze alternate sites or co‑location opportunities as required by county code.

Charles Murdock, speaking for neighbors who filed the appeal, told the board the record "does not determine which sites were evaluated, how they were compared, or why each was determined not to be feasible." He asked the board to demand a clear administrative finding showing the ordinance’s required alternative‑site analysis had been completed.

Multiple residents emphasized scenic impacts and community character. Lindsey Chastain, who said her home is about 300 feet from the approved site, said: "We're not asking you to protect my view or my property value. I'm just asking you to protect the life we've built here." Others pointed to potential property‑value effects and the loss of an undeveloped desert vista that residents purchased and pay taxes to preserve.

The applicant’s representatives disputed those assertions. Shelly Neece, president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Towers, said the company conducted a comprehensive site search and that many lots in the subdivision were not viable due to CC&Rs or lack of existing structures for co‑location. RF consultant Steven Kennedy said a site of the proposed height is needed in rural areas to provide the required coverage and capacity; he said the nearest Verizon site was over five miles away and that shorter towers or small cells would not achieve the same service area.

Supervisors debated whether the written record sufficiently documented alternatives analysis and whether a lower‑height configuration or multiple shorter towers had been meaningfully evaluated. The motion to support the appeal and deny the permit was made by the supervisor representing District 3 and seconded; the measure passed 4–1. The board’s motion cited a lack of transparent alternatives analysis in the administrative record and the potential adverse viewshed impacts to Kitt Peak and other vistas as central concerns.

Next steps: the denial stands unless overturned through subsequent administrative or legal processes. The board did not direct immediate remand language on record‑correction steps; staff and the applicant may return with revised materials or pursue further appeal rights available under county code and state and federal law.