Showlow · 2020-10-21 · case details pending

Council Defers Cell Tower Decision to November 17 Public Hearing Amid Radiation Concerns and Location Disputes

On October 21, 2020, the Show Low City Council voted unanimously to schedule a public hearing for November 17 rather than decide immediately on a contested 110-foot monopine cell tower proposed for 591 North Clark Road by Verizon Wireless. The Planning & Zoning Commission had narrowly approved the conditional use permit (CUP 602-04-232) on October 13 by a 4-3 vote—after two failed motions on September 22 (2-4 and 3-3)—triggering an appeal by neighboring property owners. Tonight's deferral reflects the council's recognition that the issue is more complex than a straightforward land-use decision and may require code modernization.

Key Speeches

"It is obvious that our code is 20 years old. It is obvious that there are some things that are changing in our world of technology, and it is possible that we need to look at the code by which we have four towers, because this is not going to be the first one we've had in a long time." — John Leech Jr..

"The only side effect of non-ionizing [radiation] is heat. The FCC created the public limit... for the public, there's two types: there's public and occupational... the general public [limit] is one milliwatt per centimeter squared, averaged over 30 minutes. That's 50 times lower than what the FCC found for the limit for maximum permissible exposure." — Steve Kennedy, RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless consultant

"I don't care if there's a tower there. I just don't want this stuff going through my daughter's body—my 13-year-old daughter's body. That's what I'm concerned about." — Mr. Kim, resident and appeal participant

"The amendment shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of three-fourths of all members of the city council [if a 20% protest is filed]. ...That section is 15-131, which refers to a zone change. This is a conditional use permit, which is found in section 15-132." — City Attorney (responding to Kevin Lowry's question about protest-petition voting thresholds)

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Young Design Group and Verizon staff presented the tower proposal; RF engineer Steve Kennedy provided extensive technical testimony on FCC compliance, coverage-versus-capacity engineering rationale, and the health and safety of non-ionizing radiation. Kennedy explained why the site (rather than alternatives farther out, e.g., near Joe Tank Road) was chosen: to offload capacity from heavily congested existing sites and provide service where customers are concentrated.

• Staff recommendation: City Planner Tregasquez reviewed the Planning & Zoning Commission's history—September 22 failed motions (2-4 and 3-3), October 13 approval (4-3)—and outlined the council's options under city code section 15-132-g3: uphold the commission decision, modify conditions, deny (with stated reasons), or schedule a public hearing. Staff recommended no specific action beyond noting that FCC regulations will not be exceeded as proposed.

• Public comment: Seven speakers addressed the council. Key themes: (1) health and radiation concerns; (2) property-value impacts; (3) location alternatives not fully explored; (4) procedural questions about voting thresholds and protest-petition provisions in city code.

  • Bob Hamilton (401 North 43rd Drive): Asked why the tower is "buried so deeply" in a residential neighborhood when it could be in the city park or farther toward Pinedale, where transmission issues exist.

  • Kevin Lowry: Cited city code section 15-132-g2 (which he misidentified; the city attorney later clarified he meant section 15-131-g2 regarding zone changes, not conditional use permits) and noted that a resident within 150 feet had filed a protest letter, which he argued should require a three-fourths supermajority vote. The city attorney disputed this, explaining that section 15-131 applies to zone changes and text amendments, not conditional use permits.

  • Mr. Kim: Expressed grave concern about non-ionizing radiation exposure, stating he "read one article" about radiation harming tissue and feared the health effects on his 13-year-old daughter and family. He acknowledged the tower may meet FCC limits but said he wanted the council to research whether those limits are truly protective.

  • Earl Cooper: Stated that Verizon had claimed to explore multiple sites but that residents had compiled a list of "at least 10" other locations and wanted the council to ask the applicant why those sites were rejected.

  • Steve Kennedy: Testified at length on RF engineering, FCC limits (OET 65 and OET 56), the distinction between ionizing (x-ray) and non-ionizing (radio) radiation, capacity-versus-coverage principles, and the necessity of the chosen site to offload heavily congested existing towers on the east and west sides of town. He used a Thanksgiving analogy (too many family members on one Wi-Fi network) to explain capacity constraints and said that towers are "not built just for the heck of it"—they are expensive, multi-year projects requiring forward planning.

• Council discussion: Mayor Leech opened by noting that seven council members normally attend but only six were present tonight (Vice Mayor Connie Kakavas was excused), which meant a 3-3 tie could occur if they voted immediately. He polled residents by Show Low hands, finding strong opposition; when he asked if residents would be "more willing to listen" if the tower were moved farther from residences, some hands went up. He proposed deferring to a public hearing and possibly revisiting the code.

  Council Member Jon Adams supported the deferral, noting that council members had not had time to read the appeal materials and suggesting that residents designate a spokesperson to avoid repetitive testimony. Council Member Derik Whipple disagreed with limiting speakers to one representative, saying residents should retain choice. Mayor Leech reiterated he did not intend to restrict speakers to one person, only to encourage organization.

  Council Member Brandt Clark called for the deferral to allow time for code review and staff preparation.

• Vote: On a motion by an unidentified council member (seconded), the council voted 6-0 to schedule the matter for a public hearing on November 17, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. on the council's agenda, slated as the second or third item to avoid running late.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 5 speakers (Bob Hamilton, Kevin Lowry, Earl Cooper, Mr. Kim, and indirectly addressed by Jon Adams' comment about repetitive testimony).

Main concerns:

1. Health and radiation exposure: Mr. Kim was most vocal, expressing fear that non-ionizing radiation would penetrate his daughter's body and other family members' bodies, despite FCC compliance. He questioned whether FCC limits truly protect against tissue damage and wanted the council to conduct independent research.

2. Property values: Multiple speakers referenced property-value impacts (referenced by Mayor Leech when summarizing opposition themes); FCC compliance does not address aesthetic or market-value effects.

3. Location alternatives: Residents insisted that alternative sites—farther from residences, on forest-service land near Joe Tank Road, or closer to Pinedale (where transmission is weak)—had not been adequately explored or justified. Earl Cooper claimed a list of "at least 10" unused sites.

4. Procedural voting thresholds: Kevin Lowry cited what he believed was a 20% protest-petition provision requiring a three-fourths supermajority vote, though the city attorney clarified that provision applies to zone changes (section 15-131), not conditional use permits (section 15-132).

5. Lack of transparency on engineering rationale: Residents demanded explanation for why Verizon chose this specific location when alternatives appeared available.

6. Aesthetic/visual impact: Referenced implicitly by Mayor Leech's comments on property values and explicitly noted in staff presentation (residents raised concerns about visual appearance in a neighborhood setting).

7. Community burden: Implicit concern that residential areas should not bear the infrastructure burden when rural or industrial alternatives exist.

Most compelling arguments:

• Mr. Kim's emotional appeal about his daughter's health resonated with the council's willingness to defer and research; the council explicitly acknowledged health concerns, even if technically outside their purview under FCC preemption.
• Earl Cooper's challenge to identify why specific alternative sites were not viable put pressure on Verizon to justify site selection—an issue the council agreed to explore in the public hearing.
• The procedural voting question raised by Kevin Lowry, even if ultimately resolved in favor of a simple majority, signaled that code ambiguities exist and warranted review.

Organized groups: No formal opposition organization identified in the transcript, though residents appeared to be coordinating (mentioning a compiled list of alternative sites and coordinating questions).

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 substantive speaker (Steve Kennedy, RF engineer for Verizon), plus implicit support from applicant representatives (Young Design Group staff, unnamed Verizon representatives).

Main arguments:

1. FCC compliance and health safety: Kennedy extensively detailed that the proposed tower's RF emissions will be 0.1 of the FCC general-public limit and that non-ionizing radiation—unlike ionizing radiation (x-rays)—cannot alter DNA and produces only heat as a side effect. He cited OET 65 and OET 56 technical standards and stressed that the FCC conservative design margin was 10 times stricter than necessary.

2. Engineering necessity: Kennedy explained that the tower is sited to offload heavily congested existing sites (one already at 95% capacity, another approaching 80% next year) and that coverage and capacity must be co-located with customer demand. He used the analogy of building a bathroom where the house is, not miles away.

3. Economic development and property values (secondary): Mayor Leech, in his closing remarks, noted that reliable internet service and data infrastructure attract remote workers and businesses (citing his son in Utah working from Show Low, Arizona), which can increase property values and competitiveness. This addresses the opposition's property-value concern from a different angle.

4. Multi-tenant capability: Kennedy acknowledged that the tower will be designed to support multiple carriers (likely three tenants initially) and explained how antennas are spaced and camouflaged to maintain aesthetic standards even when fully built out.

5. Industry necessity and precedent: Kennedy framed tower development as a standard, expensive, multi-year process driven by market demand and engineering necessity, not arbitrary decision-making.

Organized support: Verizon Wireless and Young Design Group are the primary proponents; no grassroots support organization identified.

Project Details

• Case number: CUP 602-04-232

• Applicant / Developer: Verizon Wireless; represented by Young Design Group

• Attorney: Not named in transcript; city attorney provided legal guidance on code interpretation but is not the applicant's counsel.

• Location / Address: 591 North Clark Road, alternatively addressed as 3980 West Coulee, Show Low, Arizona

• APN: 309-52-027B

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not explicitly stated in transcript; context suggests residential or mixed-use zoning at the site, with conditional use permit allowing a cellular tower.

• Density / units / square footage: Not applicable; project is a 110-foot monopine (decorative tower designed to resemble a tree) cell tower, not a residential or commercial development.

• Height and design: 110 feet (no additional height permitted per conditions); monopine design with camouflage branches and foliage; designed to support multiple carriers (up to three tenants anticipated) with antennas spaced approximately 10–12 feet apart vertically.

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): Not stated; the October 13 approval was the first affirmative vote after two failed motions on September 22.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 6-0 (in favor of scheduling a public hearing)

• Yes: All six council members present (John Leech Jr.., Council Members Jon Adams, Derik Whipple, Brandt Clark, Gentry Hatch, Bryce Judd)

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: Vice Mayor Connie Kakavas was excused and absent from the meeting.

Outcome & Next Steps

The council voted to schedule a public hearing for November 17, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. (to be held as the second or third agenda item to avoid running late). The applicant agreed to participate, though one applicant representative noted he will be out of state in Dallas, Texas, and asked to participate telephonically; the council indicated it would enable telephonic participation for applicant representatives and potentially for council members as well.

Conditions and continuance:

• Staff agreed to compile all written questions and responses (15+ items identified in the staff summary) and distribute them to residents and council members before the November 17 hearing, so that all parties come prepared.

• Residents were encouraged to leave contact information (email or physical address) with the city so they can receive the materials in advance.

• Mayor Leech signaled that the council intends to revisit the city's cell-tower code (section 15-132 and related provisions) before or after the hearing, given that the existing code is approximately 20 years old and may not adequately address modern telecommunications infrastructure needs.

• No conditions were modified, nor was the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision upheld or denied at this meeting.

Controversies & Context

Code ambiguity and voting thresholds: Kevin Lowry raised a question about whether city code section 15-132-g2 (which he misread) required a three-fourths supermajority vote if 20% of neighboring property owners filed a protest petition. The city attorney clarified that section 15-131-g2 (which addresses zone changes and text amendments) carries that supermajority requirement, not section 15-132 (conditional use permits), which requires only a majority vote. This distinction is important: conditional use permits are governed by federal law (the 1996 Telecommunications Act) and state law, which require that any denial must be accompanied by stated reasons and cannot be based solely on health concerns if FCC limits are met. The attorney noted that any motion to deny must state specific reasons, and a bare failure of a motion to approve is not equivalent to a denial—an affirmative motion to deny is required. This procedural confusion suggests the code may benefit from clarification.

FCC preemption and health concerns: The city attorney and staff emphasized that federal law (47 U.S.C. § 704 of the Telecommunications Act) preempts local health-based denials of cell towers if FCC emissions limits are met. Mr. Kim's emotional testimony about his daughter's health exposure, while poignant and driving the council's deferral decision, is technically outside the council's authority to consider as a basis for denial. However, the council's willingness to defer and research suggests a desire to find legitimate local regulatory grounds (e.g., location, aesthetics, code updates) to address community concerns.

Site selection and alternatives: Earl Cooper and others pressed the applicant to justify why alternative sites (e.g., farther from residential areas, on forest-service land, or closer to Pinedale) were rejected. Steve Kennedy's explanation—that capacity must be co-located with customer demand—was technically sound but did not satisfy residents' concerns that the site choice prioritized coverage over community impact. The council agreed to request written documentation of Verizon's site-selection process and justification for rejecting alternatives.

Code modernization: Mayor Leech explicitly stated that the city's cell-tower code is approximately 20 years old and may not adequately account for modern telecommunications infrastructure, which is becoming essential to economic development, remote work, and public safety. The deferral provides time for staff and council to assess whether zoning or conditional-use-permit standards should be updated to balance carrier needs, community aesthetics, and setback or location requirements.

Split Planning Commission vote: The 4-3 approval on October 13 followed two failed motions on September 22 (2-4 and 3-3), indicating substantial commission disagreement. This history, combined with the six council members' unanimous deferral decision, suggests that the issue transcends a simple yes-no proposition and touches on larger policy questions about infrastructure, health, and land use.

Duration

• This item (CUP 602-04-232 Cell Tower Appeal): Approximately 2–2.5 hours (extended public comment, RF engineer testimony, council discussion, and procedural clarification).

• Total meeting: Approximately 3.5–4 hours (included chamber of commerce presentation, snow management plan presentation, consent calendar and proclamations, current events, and fire restrictions announcement).

Other Notable Items

Snow Management Plan Presentation: Rick Austin and Ryan Hall presented the city's 2021 snow-removal operations plan, detailing 14 routes, 28 operators, four response levels based on snowfall, and a policy for mailbox damage reimbursement (up to 100% value if verified as caused by plowing) and snow-berm removal for elderly and disabled residents. The plan is routine but was well-received by council.

Chamber of Commerce Update: Rob Hepner reported significant visitor traffic (400+ monthly vs. historical average of 100), robust social media engagement, and upcoming Show Low Days and Derby Down the Deuce events. Chamber is refinancing its building to improve cash flow and has reorganized volunteer and staffing to focus on local business membership and economic development. This item was presented as a positive operational update with no controversy.

Community Fast of Compassion Proclamation: The council unanimously approved a proclamation for the 8th annual Community Fast of Compassion (November 8–14), which has raised over $100,000 cumulatively over seven years to support local families in need. Representatives Steve Williams, Steve Heckathorn, and Tom Brown spoke to the breadth of the program's reach (serving all schools, providing clothing and meals, supporting the Salvation Army, Christian Community Outreach, the Oaks Lodge, and VFW) and its non-partisan, faith-inclusive ethos. This item was ceremonial and passed 6-0 without debate.

Buddy Poppy Day Proclamation: VFW Commander Mr. Hill presented the proclamation for November 11 Buddy Poppy Day, noting that the VFW has distributed funds to over 70 families in the past year despite COVID-19 operational constraints. Upcoming veterans' events include a November 11 ceremony at the veterans memorial and a dinner at the Elks Lodge. The council approved 6-0 with appreciation for the VFW's service.