County delays decision on cell tower permit | Local News Stories

Have any questions? Please give us a call at 970-249-3444

Herb Quintana, who applied for a special use permit on behalf of Verizon Wireless, speaks to the Montrose County commissioners about the telecommunications company's plans for a cell phone tower on Sunnyside Road. (Screenshot)

Assistant Editor and Senior Writer

Montrose County commissioners delayed a decision on whether to grant a special use permit for a strongly contested Verizon cell tower on Sunnyside Road, on Wednesday directing planning staff to gather more information on possible alternative locations and setback distances.

They held off on engaging an independent evaluation of property values, which opponents had raised as a reason to deny the permit. Commissioner Roger Rash said property values are a concern, but did not know how the effect of a cell tower on property values could be objectively demonstrated, since each side in the dispute could secure an expert to bolster their view.

Verizon Wireless is proposing to build a 100-foot tower at 67456 Sunnyside Road to fill a service gap and increase capacity, said Herb Quintana, who applied for the special use permit on behalf of Verizon. If approved, the permit would allow a mono-stealth pole tower on a leased portion of a parcel zoned as general agriculture. The tower is designed to resemble a pine tree in an attempt to reduce visual impact, although one opponent said a “Charlie Brown Christmas tree” look just wouldn’t cut it.

“We do meet all of the criteria for this application and the planning commission’s recommended approval,” Quintana said, going on to detail coverage and need in the general area. The tower will increase data speeds and coverage in the growing residential area surrounding the tower site, as well as expand 5G capabilities for Verizon’s wireless internet, plus 5G and LT coverage for those just using a cell phone in the area, east down U.S. 50, while alleviating capacity issues with other sites.

“Even if we tried to enhance the other sites, it wouldn’t do what this site is going to do,” Quintana said. The majority of cell sites now are on the west side of Montrose, sitting at lower elevations, with less reach.

A map he provided showed areas where there is good indoor and outdoor coverage, and also where there is poor coverage; he said the new tower, if approved, would provide good coverage well beyond current boundaries.

“There is actually a need for this site,” Quintana said.

Neighbors and local builders disagreed. “No one wants or needs this tower. It should be denied outright,” resident Larry Wooddell said. “You’re under no obligation to approve this. This is a special use permit application, which carries a specific set of regulations and considerations. Welfare is a consideration in addition to safety. The simple question is, would you as individuals want any new, never-before existing structure in the middle of your residential neighborhood?”

The Montrose County Planning Commission in May forwarded the permit request to the county commissioners on a 4-1 vote, after hearing multiple concerns from nearby property owners, as well as from Quintana about the need for a tower there. The decision was based on the application meeting all county requirements and key zoning regulations, plus the recommendation for approval came with several conditions.

Federal telecommunications regulations do not allow the county to deny the permit over disputed health concerns over radio frequency non-ionizing radiation, or RF, it was said at that meeting. That was repeated Wednesday: local government cannot base approval or denial of a telecommunications facility based on the environmental health effects of RF. However, one of the recommended conditions attaching to the permit requires the tower to meet or exceed federal ones, as well as state and local requirements.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions related to cell phone towers, but with specific limits, Montrose County Attorney Marti Whitmore said. “A local government may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service facilities,” she said.

Regulations give the county 150 days to act on the permit application and any denial must be supported by “substantial” evidence in the record, a higher standard than Colorado’s standard of “any” supporting evidence. The federal standard prohibits the county from denying such permits directly or indirectly on environmental effects of RF, Whitmore also said. The county can regulate by limiting towers to certain zoning districts, setback requirements or aesthetic requirements, however.

The cell tower is to be located southwest of a corral on the property, 95 feet from the property line and 200 feet from the existing home on the property on the north. To the east, the closest home is about 200 feet; to the south, about 675 feet and to the west, about 1,100 feet, Planning Director Tallmadge Richmond said.

The “fall radius” is 1.5 times the height of the proposed tower, so 150 feet. The fall zone is in place to preclude the tower from striking another structure, if it were to for some reason fall. Richmond said all homes lie outside of the fall zone, although commissioners later raised concerns about the risk to private property all the same. He reiterated that although the parcel in question is within the city of Montrose’s urban growth boundary — and the city has stricter requirements for cell tower height — it doesn’t intend to annex the property in question.

Quintana told commissioners Verizon is governed by the Federal Communications Commission and thus, its tower, equipment and operations of towers are highly regulated, with the FCC also taking other federal agencies’ recommendations into account, as well as input from scientists and expert non-governmental organizations. “Verizon meets or exceeds all of the federal communications requirements,” he said.

Quintana later told Aviation Director Lloyd Arnold that Verizon received a notice of non-hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration as well.

In addressing public concern about property values, Quintana said he was not qualified to speak to that, but referenced an article from Realtor Magazine showing that for 82% of prospective homeowners, 5G was important, and that fast wireless service was a must for 90%.

Again, there was pushback from opposed neighbors.

Leroy Goats asked commissioners to deny to permit because of the financial impact to himself and “hundreds” of other residents. “The presence of cell towers in residential neighborhoods has been researched extensively for several decades,” he said. Although he could not locate a Colorado-specific study, Goats referenced others. The National Board of Realtors in 2019 advised of a study by Empirical Economics Group (Georgia), which found homes sold within 1,500 feet of a cell tower had to be discounted by as much as 7.6%. Data based on 23,000 home sales showed home values dropped by almost 3% on average; that if the tower was visible from the property, the reduction was 10% and loss of property values in the study area alone was $23 million.

“Of the many hundreds of homes located proximate to this proposed tower, virtually all but a few recent ones were bought or constructed without a cell tower in their midst. I can say for myself I would not have bought in American Village if the proposed tower had been present and it’s very probable that some or many others would not have bought for the same reason,” Goats said. “Verizon has the resources … to find an area on the east side of Montrose, where there are few, if any existing residences. They can afford to move their location, but the hundreds of homeowners negatively impacted will not have the choice to relocate to avoid the tower. I’m not presenting ‘not in my backyard’ thinking here. This is pure economics to me and to many other people in the area.”

Fran Meadows also said Verizon, as a multi-billion dollar company, could choose a different location for the tower, yet she’s not seen it demonstrate due diligence to find any.

Builders are also affected, Mike Bussing said. Bussing has three lots with spec homes within 200 feet of the proposed tower location. If the sale price drops by 10% because of the tower, that would consume all of his profit. Because it would also take more time to find a buyer, he would be paying caring costs for a longer time. “And I’m not the only builder that’s affected,” Bussing said.

At first, he did not see an issue with a cell tower, but a buyer quickly changed his mind — the buyer canceled because of it. “So right away, I lost money,” he said, going on to allege the FCC is too heavily influenced by the telecommunications industry when it comes to regulating health concerns.

Commissioners questioned Quintana about the siting of the tower. He said the location was chosen to keep the base of the tower behind existing structures and that county zoning did not require a specific setback from existing structures, only that the fall zone be 1.5 times the height of the tower.

“A failing tower would be a huge deal. I’ve never seen one fail except in Hurricane Katrina,” he said. The tower is 95 feet from the property line, but 200 feet from the nearest structure.

Quintana told Commissioner Sue Hansen there are other design options, but “in keeping with trying to be a good neighbor,” Verizon is making it a stealth facility — one that would blend in more with surroundings.

Rash asked what happens if the adjacent property is developed to include a house at or near the property line. The tower could in that scenario fall onto the property if it fails, he indicated, asking if the tower location could be shifted to avoid falling onto the property. Although the area in question includes 58 feet of common area that isn’t eyed for development, he was concerned that distance wouldn’t be enough.

“I know we want to be concerned about the visual aspect of this thing. Does that change the visual aspect?” Rash said.

Quintana said from his perspective, it did not, although neighbors might have a different view.

Commissioner Keith Caddy voiced concerns similar to Rash’s, including that if the tower failed, it could fall outside of the area of the property Verizon has leased. “There’s obviously enough room that you could move that location to accommodate that,” Rash said.

“That’s fine from Verizon’s perspective. We would have to work that out,” Quintana said. The property owner would have to decide whether to lease more of her ground for a bigger fall zone.

“Would there be a problem with setting it back 150 feet instead of 95 feet from that property line?” Caddy asked, and Quintana indicated it would not.

Members of the public also questioned the tower’s placement. Lori Armstrong offered her perspective as a federal manager who has permitted a number of cell towers in her time. There is flexibility to move towers when they are proposed in an area that isn’t the best fit.

“There is quite a bit of space and agricultural land undeveloped land, wherein there might be some considerations that might be better suited rather than surrounded by housing,” she said. “As a federal manager, we often required them to consider multiple locations and then we can look and see if there are better situations.”

Most cell towers also rent their tower space to other entities, Armstrong noted.

Annika Printz asked for bigger-picture consideration. The Montrose County Planning Commission heard “100% opposition” to the tower when it considered whether to forward the application on to county commissioners, she noted. “My question is, why is it still up for discussion, if 100% is against it and does our voice really count?” she said. “Can public opposition, for any reason anyone might have, qualify as rationale for denial?”

In board discussion, Rash asked what proof the county needs to demonstrate how property values would be affected.

“I think you would need an expert opinion, not just articles that are not pertaining to this location … an expert appraiser,” Whitmore said. The county has no responsibility to engage such an expert, but could if desired. The applicant and opposing parties alike can provide expert opinions, she said.

“That is a concern of mine. I just don’t know how you go about proving it,” Rash said. “I know what would happen if the applicant brought (an expert) forward. They would be in favor and the citizens, they would find someone that would be against it. It would not be useful in my opinion. The county, could we engage in that? Would it be useful?”

Hansen said they could continue the matter to look into some of the concerns Rash and Caddy raised, but from her point of view, the commission has enough information without delving into expert views on property values.

“We have an applicant who has complied with the county regs. There’s some setback concerns you might have, but essentially, is operating according to what the county zoning is, notwithstanding the fact that there is some opposition. I just want to remind everybody that that’s the case,” she said.

Hansen moved to continue the hearing until July 17, which Caddy seconded. The public hearing portion of the matter is closed.

Katharhynn Heidelberg is the Montrose Daily Press assistant editor and senior writer. Follow her on Twitter, @kathMDP.

Assistant Editor and Senior Writer

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks. We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Account processing issue - the email address may already exist

Receive the digital, interactive PDF of the newspaper in your inbox.

Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.

Check your email for details.

Invalid password or account does not exist

Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.

An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.

Secure transaction. Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.

Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.

Fire Tower A receipt was sent to your email.

County delays decision on cell tower permit | Local News Stories | montrosepress.com