Show Low approves 110-foot Verizon cell tower on North Clark Road despite community opposition
SHOW LOW, ARIZONA — November 18, 2020

Show Low approves 110-foot Verizon cell tower on North Clark Road despite community opposition

City council held contentious public hearing on appeal of planning commission's approval of 110-foot cell tower conditional use permit with significant setback reductions, with community opposition citing health, safety, property value, and aesthetic concerns balanced against applicant's capacity and coverage justifications.

City Council Approves Disputed Cell Tower on North Clark Road; Setback Reductions Divide Council on Safety and Aesthetics

The Show Low City Council on November 18, 2020, approved a contentious conditional use permit for a 110-foot Verizon monopine cell tower at 591 North Clark Road (APN 52-027-B-6) by a 5–2 vote, affirming the planning and zoning commission's October decision despite sustained community opposition and acknowledged council reservations about the project's proximity to residential properties and the site's inability to meet standard setback requirements without deliberate code reductions.

The tower will serve to offload capacity at the existing AZ3 Deuce of Clubs site on the east side of town and provide coverage to surrounding residential areas. However, the approval required the applicant, Verizon Wireless via Young Design Group, to reduce setbacks by 43.7 feet to the north (to 93.8 feet, a 31.8% reduction from the required 137.5 feet) and 75.3 feet to the west from residential properties (to 124.7 feet, a 37.65% reduction from the required 200 feet). The city's 200-foot visual corridor protection along roadways could not be reduced by the commission under current code, though both remain among the most contentious issues raised by opponents.

Key Speeches

"We are here to protect property rights as well as your rights as well as the rights of the property owner who owns the property of where the proposed cell tower is. They have rights as well. There's also many other things that could be built that would never come before us for a public consideration or for a conditional use permit that they could just meet the code and come in tomorrow and build a 45-foot building along the back of that property line." — John Leech Jr..

"I would have thought of this sooner … in all reality we can put a 40-story motel there if it [is] because of the C2 [zoning]. But the code allows for the commission to reduce the fall zone setback and the setback to residentially zoned property, which they did in this case." — City Attorney Morgan (responding to clarification request)

"I have to admit a total failure in seeing what I was part of. How in the world I could set through an idea that a visual corridor was more important than human being is beyond me tonight. I'm frustrated beyond belief." — Council Member Gene Kelly, expressing regret over Ordinance 493 (June 19, 2001), which locked in the 200-foot visual corridor protection

"The objective of the new site is capacity. The site to the east [AZ3 Deuce of Clubs] is out of capacity. It's trying to cover this room and all the other rooms surrounding it. It's not able to handle that. It needs somebody to come in and offload." — Brent (applicant's RF engineer), using a room-and-speaker analogy to explain network capacity

"Even with the setback reductions of 43 feet and 75 feet, I'm just not real happy with us having to do this. The setback change [is problematic]. I think we as [a council] once we set code and everything else and people buy sound [on those rules], I don't want to make sure that everything fits in there. This tower, I think, is in the wrong place." — Vice Mayor (identified as council member on west side of town, near Gentry Hatch)

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 6 (Sandy Goodrich, resident; Kevin Lowry, attorney for neighborhood; Michael McMullen, resident; Holly McMullen, resident; Walter Hedy, resident; Lynette Bihar, resident; Susan Wagley, resident)

Main concerns:

  1. Structural failure risk: Monopole towers collapse approximately 40 times per day nationwide; the most common causes are base-component failures and fires. Mrs. Cash, a nearby resident, lives 124.7 feet from the proposed tower—within the original 125% fall-zone requirement. When towers fail, debris lands equal to or greater than the tower's height. Applicant cited modern engineering and mid-point failure design (reducing fall distance to ~55 feet) but opponents cited specific examples of recent failures and fires.

  2. Ice and debris fall hazard: During spring thaw and winter wind events, ice forming on the monopine limbs could shed and strike homes or pedestrians. Approximately 40 people walk daily from the adjacent residential area (Fairway Park/properties 501–561 North Clark Road) to Dollar General and Circle K across the property.

  3. RF radiation safety: Although applicant presented detailed FCC OET Bulletin 65 compliance data (tower emissions at 0.1% of general public limit vs. 50% for cell phones), residents cited International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) concerns about 2G tower exposure near fire stations and noted that FCC standards were last comprehensively reviewed in 1997 before 5G deployment. Residents demanded independent verification of applicant's modeling data, citing applicant bias.

  4. Property value decline: Residents asserted that proximity to cell towers reduces real estate values. However, a retired real estate appraiser (Jerry Bergstrand) testified in support, stating he saw "no reduction in property values from this thing" and that the commercial zoning posed a greater risk. Council Member Gene Kelly acknowledged personal experience counseling that many real estate professionals refuse to show properties near towers.

  5. Setback reduction violations: Applicant's 43.7-foot and 75.3-foot reductions exceed any prior reductions the city has granted. Council Member Michael McMullen noted that "they're pushing it 75 feet closer to a residential area [while] they can't move it any closer than 200 feet to a roadway" — an apparent inconsistency in prioritizing visual corridor over human safety.

  6. Lack of hard data and alternatives: Sandy Goodrich (resident/former teacher) stated that applicant data "is not hard data" and demanded independent audits. Walter Hedy presented alternative sites including forest-service and city-owned property north of town (near the existing show-high tower), which he argued offered line-of-sight into town and clearer separation from residential zones.

  7. Inconsistent city policy: Council Member Vice Mayor (identified in discussion as Connie Kakavas, though transcription is unclear in places) and Council Member Kelly both emphasized that the city spent $500,000 removing telephone poles and power lines in downtown Show Low to improve visual aesthetics, yet was now approving a 110-foot tower that would be 40 feet taller than surrounding trees and visually prominent to nearby homeowners.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 2 (Jerry Bergstrand, retired real estate appraiser and neighborhood resident; Brent, applicant's RF engineer via presentation and Q&A)

Main arguments:

  1. Network capacity crisis: Fire Chief Savage (cited by applicant, not present in person) confirmed that the AZ3 Deuce of Clubs tower is at capacity, with 911 dispatch systems, mobile-data terminals, and cardiac monitors dependent on Verizon's cellular network. Every weekend, systems become overloaded; calls are sometimes routed to Navajo County, delaying emergency response. With 35,000 full-time residents and 15,000–20,000 seasonal visitors, the existing two-tower network cannot handle peak traffic.

  2. Strategic network engineering: The proposed site is positioned mid-way between the northwest (Show High) and east (AZ3) towers, allowing capacity to be split and reducing stress on the overburdened AZ3 site. Applicant RF engineer demonstrated via coverage maps and best-server plots that alternative sites proposed by residents (west or north of Show High) would not address the capacity crisis because they would be too distant from the area of demand.

  3. No property-value harm: Jerry Bergstrand argued from appraisal experience that adjacent properties face greater impact from C2 commercial zoning (which permits 45-foot buildings, motels, retail) than from a tower designed to blend into the landscape. Improved cellular service might modestly enhance property values by reducing the "dead zone" problem.

  4. Regulatory compliance: The tower will comply with FCC OET Bulletin 65 standards (reaffirmed in 2019 for 5G); RF emissions at the base will be 0.1% of the general public limit (vs. 50% for cell phones held to the head). Non-ionizing radiation causes only heat; ionizing radiation (which damages DNA) does not result from cellular frequencies.

  5. Modern engineering and design: The monopine design (vs. lattice or pole towers) minimizes visual impact; adjacent trees are only 60–73 feet tall, while this tower at 110 feet, while visually prominent, is an industry-standard monopine configuration. Applicant's engineering indicates mid-point failure (reducing effective fall distance to ~55 feet), and extensive fencing will restrict unauthorized access.

  6. Legitimate setback reductions under code: City code Section 15.169(g)(2)(d) explicitly permits the commission to reduce the 125% fall-zone setback if the ordinance's goals are better served. The applicant demonstrated that the property's limited depth (due to the non-reducible 200-foot visual corridor and existing commercial zoning constraints) makes meeting standard setbacks impossible without a reduction.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Note: The transcript contains two separate motions and votes. Council Member Gene Kelly moved to deny based on failure to meet standard setbacks and lack of demonstrated goal-enhancement under city code. That motion failed 5–2 (Kelly and one other; Connie Kakavas seconded but the recorded "no" votes suggest she did not vote for the denial). Gentry Hatch then moved to approve the CUP with conditions (expanded fencing and aesthetic screening), which passed 5–2 (exact vote tally: Leech, Gentry Hatch, Bryce Judd via phone, Brandt Clark via phone, and a fifth not individually named; opposed: Kelly and Vice Mayor).

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: The planning and zoning commission's October 13, 2020, conditional use permit approval for the 110-foot Verizon monopine cell tower at 591 North Clark Road was upheld and approved by the city council on November 18, 2020, subject to two additional conditions not originally imposed by the commission:

  1. Expanded fencing: The footprint fencing around the tower base and equipment pad must be extended to encompass the full understory of the monopine structure, addressing council concern about ice fall and debris hazard to pedestrians passing beneath overhanging branches.

  2. Aesthetic screening: The fencing shall incorporate some form of stain, camouflage, or visual enhancement to minimize the appearance of the barrier and reduce the aesthetic impact flagged by Council Member Leech (who noted that the "ugly fencing" around similar towers is the most visually problematic element, not the tower itself).

Additional requirements (from original commission decision):

Continuance / appeals: The council's decision is final and effective immediately. No further city approval is required, though the applicant must still obtain building permits. Standard administrative appeal periods under state law apply.

What comes next:

Controversies & Context

Ordinance 493 (June 19, 2001) — The Visual-Corridor Paradox:

Council Member Gene Kelly's on-the-record apology during the November 18 hearing revealed a critical schism in the city's long-standing tower ordinance. In 2001, the council adopted Ordinance 493, which established a 200-foot visual corridor protection along major roadways, prioritizing aesthetic appearance over other safety considerations. Kelly stated: "I have to admit a total failure in seeing what I was part of. How in the world I could set through an idea that a visual corridor was more important than human being is beyond me tonight."

This ordinance now creates a Catch-22: the 200-foot visual corridor cannot be reduced by the planning and zoning commission (per Section 15.169), forcing applicants to reduce residential setbacks instead to fit towers on shallow commercial parcels. The property in question is only ~325 feet deep, making it impossible to meet both a 200-foot visual buffer and a 137.5-foot fall-zone setback without reducing the residential separation. Kelly's frustration highlights a policy failure that may affect future tower proposals in the city.

Downtown $500,000 Investment in Visual Aesthetics:

Council Members Kelly and Connie Kakavas both emphasized that the city recently invested approximately $500,000 removing telephone poles and power lines from downtown Show Low to improve visual aesthetics and streetscape quality. Yet the council simultaneously approved a 110-foot tower (40 feet taller than the surrounding forest canopy) in a residential-adjacent area. This inconsistency—prioritizing visual corridors on commercial roads while tolerating towers near homes—drew sharp criticism from opponents and even sympathetic council members.

Fire Department Capacity Dependency:

Fire Chief Savage's documented statement (via applicant) that the city's emergency 911 dispatch system, mobile data terminals, and cardiac monitors depend on the Verizon network underscores a critical vulnerability: local emergency services are captive to commercial cellular infrastructure. However, opponents questioned whether the specific North Clark Road location is the only viable site to relieve this bottleneck, and whether alternative sites (e.g., forest-service land north of town, as proposed by Walter Hedy) could achieve the same offloading benefit without residential impact.

RF Radiation and Firefighter Health Concerns (IAFF):

Lynette Bihar cited the International Association of Firefighters' (IAFF) opposition to siting towers near fire stations, citing documented health effects (focus problems, headaches, depression, sleep deprivation, tremors) among firefighters exposed to 2G cell-tower radiation. The applicant's RF engineer (Brent) countered that modern standards, including FCC OET Bulletin 65 (reaffirmed in 2019 for 5G), ensure safety and that tower emissions are 0.1% of the general public limit. However, the gulf between expert reassurance and community skepticism remained unresolved; residents challenged the applicant's 1997 bulletin and demanded independent verification.

Data Accuracy and Applicant Bias:

Holly McMullen directly challenged the applicant's coverage and capacity modeling, noting that her own telecommute works fine via mobile hotspot despite claimed dead zones. Sandy Goodrich raised the concern that applicant data "is not hard data" and may be biased toward the preferred site. The fact that Campanelli and Associates (the applicant's attorney who compiled the 106-page legal memorandum filed by the neighborhood) was unavailable for cross-examination further undermined the credibility of opposition arguments by the applicant's own framing — a paradox Council Member Leech noted.

Prior Setback Reductions:

City Attorney Morgan confirmed that the city has previously approved setback reductions. Two prior 80-foot towers received approximately 60-foot reductions to the fall zone and significant reductions to residential setbacks (down to 20 feet in at least one case). However, the current reductions (43.7 and 75.3 feet) are proportionally larger, and the tower is 30 feet taller, creating a qualitative escalation that troubled several council members.

State Preemption and 5G Small Cells:

The applicant's RF engineer noted that Arizona passed a state statute allowing 5G small-cell deployment in rights-of-way (e.g., on utility poles every 500 feet) via millimeter-wave technology, which bypasses local land-use review entirely. This preemption suggests that Show Low's ability to manage telecom infrastructure through conditional-use permitting may be eroding, and that tower-siting disputes may become moot as the state mandates deployment in public spaces.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Consent Calendar: City Council voted 7–0 to approve acceptance of the Governor's Highway Safety Office grant, authorization to hire an additional full-time equivalent, and approval of minutes from November 3, 2020.

Senior Center Kitchen Expansion: Council voted 7–0 to accept a grant for the Meals and Wheels Senior Center kitchen expansion, which added ~400 square feet, including multiple freezers, refrigerators, and storage for meals-on-wheels programming.

Chamber of Commerce Report: Show Low Chamber Director Bob Hefner and Trisha Spear reported steady growth in social-media reach (Google searches, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest) and discussed refinancing the visitor-information center building. Arizona Office of Tourism indicated approval of the chamber's operation as an official visitor center if the city provides a letter of support.

Community Thanksgiving Event: Vice Mayor announced a city-sponsored Thanksgiving meal distribution on November 23, 2020, at downtown chapel (11th and Tuning/Cooley Street), giving away 500 frozen turkeys and 300 prepared meals to residents in need. City staff, Main Street, meals and wheels, and Show Low High School students will participate.

Main Street Events: Ongoing downtown holiday decorating, "Small Shop Saturday" poker walk (November 28), magic Christmas parade registration (December 5, $20 fee), and brick fundraiser for memorial area.

Community Fast: Mayor reported the eighth annual community fast raised approximately $40,000 (up from $23,000 the previous year) for local charities; virtual celebration scheduled for November 22 at 6 p.m. on www.showlow.communityfast.org.