During the Navajo County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 27, the board approved a special use permit and settlement agreement with SBA Communications Corporation after an executive session to discuss the matter. Chair Daryl Seymore along with board members Dawnafe Whitesinger, Alberto Peshlakai and Jason Whiting voted in favor, with Fern Benally voting against.
Chair Seymour stated the board had no choice but to approve the motion. “It’s not what any of us wanted and I hope that somewhere along the line that SBA can understand the sympathy that we have for our community and for the citizens… and they find it in their heart to maybe reconsider where they locate this next tower.” Whiting also acknowledged those who spoke out against the tower. “We’ve heard you and those things matter,” he stated, “My vote doesn’t reflect my personal feelings. It reflects the role and authority I was elected to uphold.”
Litigation pertaining to this special use permit for SBA began after a board meeting on Nov. 12, 2024, where the board denied an adoption requested by SBA Communications for a special use permit to allow for construction and operations of a 120-foot multi-carrier, monopole communication tower and associated facilities on a 51.16-acre parcel, located east of Snowflake. The decision was made after 16 county residents spoke out against the tower. Many of those who spoke were from the White Antelope community, which is a community located east of Snowflake for those who suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity. White Antelope community residents believed with tower’s radio frequency will affect their health negatively, as well as the value of their unique properties.
Although the board rejected the motion following these public comments, their denial letter stated it was not due to comments regarding adverse health concerns related to radio frequency emissions, according to legal documents.
During the Nov. 12 meeting, County Attorney Brad Carlyon stated “Just to be clear, we’re not denying it because of health concerns which the FCC says you shouldn’t. You’re doing it based on the Americans with Disability Act, with one or more people falling within a disability protected by the ADA, and that this is a reasonable and necessary accommodation under the ADA for them.”
After that meeting, SBA filed a civil action suit against the county, arguing that the county violated the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act limits how local governments regulate wireless facilities. During litigation, proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene, expressing opposition against the proposed tower. The motion was denied due to untimeliness and “significant prejudice to the existing parties,” according to legal documents.
Many county residents spoke during the latest meeting on Jan. 27, to again argue in opposition of the special use permit. Resident and local realtor Kevin Dunn, who spoke during the Nov. 12, meeting stated he drove the area where the cell tower would cover and had service there. “It’s totally unnecessary to have a cell tower in that location.”
Michael Benson, representing SBA, also spoke to the board about the legal constraints they are under. “Federal law prohibits the consideration of environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation when deciding whether to approve or deny permits for cell towers.” He went on to say, “If this settlement is not approved and this matter continues, there are several basis’s on which SBA can obtain summary judgement against the county, which will result in the federal judge ordering the county approve the permit.” Benson stated that approving the permit and accepting the settlement will save the board costs in litigation, adding that SBA will pay $25,000 “to be used in the county’s sole discretion as it sees fit.”
