by Michael Howell
Neighboring county residents opposed to the placement of a new cell phone tower on the mountainside west of Hamilton may get the third-party review of the applicant’s data that they are seeking. The application for a wireless communication facility permit is being handled by the telecommunications service Vertical Bridge. But in order to install the tower at the proposed site on property owned by Matthew and Lindsy Durling along Black Bear Lane, the company needs to get a variance from a county ordinance prohibiting the installation of a new cell tower if it is located within a mile of an existing tower that could be used. In this case, the proposed site is within a mile of an existing tower higher up the mountain at the Grubstake.
The request for a variance met stiff opposition and several of the citizens expressed the need for a third-party review of the data submitted by the company supposedly showing that co-locating their transmitter on the Grubstake tower is “scientifically proven to be unfeasible and where it can be demonstrated that a unique hardship exists to prevent compliance,” as required by the ordinance in order to grant any exception to the spacing requirement.
The County Commissioners were not willing to consider paying for a third-party review but did notify the opposing landowners that they had received a proposal and cost estimate from a company to do the evaluation at a cost not to exceed $6,000 and would be willing to consider a third-party review if the landowners would pay for it.
The landowners responded, stating “while we appreciate and agree with you recognizing a need for a third-party” they believed it was the responsibility of the county to do the review. Commissioner Greg Chilcott stated that the commissioners did not recognize the need for a review; they simply heard a request from some members of the public and recognized their desire for such a review.
Commissioner Jeff Burrows said that in discussions with the potential third-party reviewer, he understood that there were a lot of different inputs you can put into the modelling to make a determination on the feasibility of using an existing tower and many ways to mitigate any negative results indicating that there is a gap in service or some interference with other towers, such as lowering the power output or changing the direction of the signal.
“If Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile ran a scenario where we are at full power pointed in this direction you could have coverage gaps,” said Burrows. “But did they run it looking at alternative powers and directions?” He said these were questions that needed answering. He said the consultant also mentioned that what he sees more often is that the cell phone company pays for third-party reviews. Burrows suggested that they reach out to Vertical Bridge and see if they were willing to do it. Another question raised was whether or not a “drive test” was conducted to determine the actual coverage area and identify gaps.
“All I know is that we deal with engineers all the time and we don’t go out and hire an independent engineer for a review,” said Chilcott.
Burrows said that if it was a $25,000 cost that it would be different, but the company was covering other mitigation costs and that, if the company was confident in its data, getting an independent third-party review would make it easier to approve a variance.
Commissioner Dan Huls said that he didn’t see anything wrong with asking Vertical Bridge if they are willing.
Chilcott said that engineers are not attorneys. “They have a code of ethics. They run the numbers. I recognize that there are different methodologies, but I think back to how many subdivisions we have where engineers come in and say here is what we have. If we had to go out and hire independent review for every application because the neighbors don’t like it and want us to pay for it…”
“There’s one big difference here,” said Burrows. “It is a variance to an ordinance that they are requesting to do. If this was a pro-forma, here’s the approval process, that’s one thing. But that’s why subdivisions that want to get variances get kind of dicey, because here’s the expectations, the predictability, the process and the regulation and when you vary from that, especially in the case of an ordinance, which is the highest level of law here that we can approve, it seems to me the bar should be set very high to vary from that. The bottom line for me is that we should at least reach out to Vertical Bridge and see what they say.”
“If they are willing to do it, then great,” said Chilcott.
On Monday, Burrows said that Vertical Bridge has indicated that they may be willing to pay for a third-party review but maybe not with the consulting company that made the offer since they were not really an engineering firm. Burrows also said that Vertical Bridge stated that no drive test had been performed in relation to the application. He also said that he had heard from the owners of the Grubstake that they would consider making a 20-foot height extension to the tower located on their property to accommodate the new service if that would help the situation.
Burrows said that he believed negotiations with Vertical Bridge were going to lead to some positive results.