SANDPOINT — On Friday, county commissioners unanimously reaffirmed a decision to deny a conditional use permit for a cell phone tower proposed for construction in the Oldtown area.

The reconsideration hearing for the file spanned over the course of two nonconsecutive days where the commissioning board concurred that the CUP conflicted with the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan, Bonner County Revised Code, did not have approved access to the proposed site and posed consequences to adjoining or nearby neighbors.

The CUP was originally reversed and denied April 9 with the standings that the permit was not in accordance with BCRC or the Comprehensive Plan. The board further indicated that the tower did not have an approved access road.

The applicant appealed the decision made on April 9, asking the board for reconsideration.

Applicant representative Josh Leonard gave a presentation in favor of the CUP, saying that the proposed cell tower would be painted to blend in with the surrounding landscape and that it would stand 445 feet away from the appellant’s residence. He also presented several photo simulations of the tower at the proposed site, showing that the tower was nearly invisible from the highway.

After Leonard’s brief presentation, radio frequency design engineer Steve Kennedy shared the alleged coverage gap in the area of the proposed tower. Kennedy shared that the cell tower was aimed at providing coverage along Highway 41 and rural areas surrounding the highway. He also provided statistics of cell phone usage in the United States, implementing the necessity of cell phone coverage through the knowledge that 96% of Americans own a cell phone.

Kennedy also shared his own scanner drive test report on cell phone coverage in the proposed tower site, arguing that there was a “significant gap in service of approximately three miles along Highway 41, as well as the rural area around the proposed site.”

After Kennedy shared graphs suggesting that the proposed site was the best location for the tower, Leonard sited the Federal Communications Act of 1996, stating that the permit could only be denied if there was substantial evidence for it and that the board “could not deny” the permit if the “denial would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”

“The Communications Act of 1996 preserves local zoning authority, but it places significant limits on it,” said Leonard. “Even if we didn't comply with the county code, we'd still be entitled to approval under federal law, because we've shown the existence of a significant gap in Verizon's wireless service, and that the proposed cell tower is the least intrusive means of remedying Verizon significant gap.”

During public comment, appellant Christine Hilbert addressed the board to thank them for denying the permit on April 9.

“While I realize this is where the political game must go, I also would like to remind everybody this is not a game to me, my family or my future, and I apologize that this process is putting us all through undue burdens,” said Hilbert.

She also spoke about the lack of necessity for cell service at the proposed tower site, arguing that Kennedy’s "own team failed to go off his data when they overruled his optimum location” for a cell tower. Hilbert used this claim to tell the board that a tower was not needed in the area.

“There is ample cell service in the area,” she said. “The have not provided any proof that there is no 911 capacity in the impact zone.”

Hilbert also touched on the obstruction of view that the tower would cause, as it would be seen directly from her backyard and would directly impact her property’s value.

She also acknowledged that the applicant did not have egress and ingress rights to access the proposed site and that Idaho Transportation Department would not permit the applicant a recorded easement due to the potential access road being on her property.  

During deliberation, commissioners took an in-depth approach to determining whether their original decision would be upheld. The board used a reason statement worksheet that highlighted all the codes that the application needed to meet, allowing them to check “yes” and “no” for each applicable criterion.

It was concluded that, while most of the criteria were met, the application didn’t align with BCRC or the Comprehensive Plan Map.

“From a hierarchical perspective, the noes were at the highest levels, and the yeses were at the lower levels of consideration,” said Commissioner Brian Domke.