Moscow City Council approves construction of 80 feet cell tower

After back and forth in the council, the cell tower is to be constructed without religious insignia placed

Land-use attorney Josh Lenard speaks at Moscow City Council | Daniel v. Ramirez | Argonaut

Moscow City Council reversed a decision Monday made by the City Board of Adjustment on the construction of an 80 feet cell tower, approving a proposed design. 

The proposed Wireless Communication Facility was planned to be built on 1400 E. Seventh St. next to the Moscow Church of the Nazarene. On Aug. 24, the board denied the application to build the WCF tower based on failure to meet relevant criteria and standards.  

The criteria the plans failed to achieve dealt with the “harmony” and need for any structure to fall into this standard.  

The council reconsidered this issue after an appeal was made Apr. 16. This effort was made to reduce the footprint of the WCF tower to meet these specific criteria.  

“How does an 80 feet tower, how is that in harmony with any residential neighborhood where you have houses that are house height,” Councilor Brandy Sullivan said.  

Bill Belknap, deputy city supervisor, clarified why an 80 feet tower is needed. Co-location would allow for other carriers to be able to place antennas on the WFC tower.  

“Because of the zoning code promotes co-location, it drives a taller tower. If somebody doesn’t put in a taller tower, they must sign a written agreement to swap it out with a taller tower if another carrier want to co-locate.” Belknap said. “It is our goal to co-locate facilities and have fewer, but taller towers.”  

The applicant, PI Tower Development LLC, presented options to the council like a church tower, a similar tower with windows and a tripod design with a cover blocking the antenna from view. 

Josh Lenard, a land-use attorney and representative of the applicant, spoke to the council about issues that came from the board decision on approval of the possible design of the WCF.  

“There was some confusion of the Board of Adjustment on how far their authority went and what they were authorize to do,” Lenard said. “They didn’t think they could approve the option four (tripod design), they only voted on the bulky church tower and the monopole.” 

Councilor Sandra Kelly favored reversing the decision by having the tripod not have any religious symbol on it. This decision was approved unanimously by the council. 

Daniel V. Ramirez can be reached at [email protected] or Twitter @DVR_Tweets  

About the Author

Daniel Ramirez I’m a senior at the University of Idaho studying both Broadcasting and Journalism. I am the social media manager for the spring semester and a writer and photographer for the news section.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.