Strings May Be Attached To Cell Tower Permit Hearing Examiner Urges County To Have At&T See If Existing Towers Have Proper Permits

AT&T Wireless should get a permit to operate its existing tower on Blossom Mountain, a Kootenai County hearing examiner said in an opinion released Wednesday.

But hearing examiner Scott Brown suggested as a condition of approval that the applicant provide full details on other towers on the one-acre parcel on the mountain.

And, if any of those towers - most of which are simple telephone poles topped with antennas - are found to be illegal, then proper permits must be obtained before AT&T Wireless can get final approval for its 60-foot cellular telephone tower.

Blossom Mountain, located about four miles south of Post Falls, is home to dozens of communication structures, poles and antennas. However, only a handful of companies have obtained necessary permits to operate there.

AT&T Wireless owns a tower that was built on one acre owned by Mark and Robert Hall. “The current property owners have been asked to provide a plan to bring any other existing structures into compliance with Kootenai County Ordinances,” Brown wrote in his opinion. “No response has been received from the current property owners as of this writing.”

Local attorney Susan Weeks, who represents AT&T Wireless, said it’s her understanding that all towers on the Halls’ acre are allowed.

“I think it’s a good recommendation,” Weeks said of Brown’s opinion. “Some of the conditions for approval are a little different, but they are ones we are willing to discuss with the board of county commissioners.”

The Kootenai County Commission will have the final say on the application, but commissioners seldom go against hearing examiner opinions.

In a related matter, the county started this week its own investigation into whether the dozens of communication towers on Blossom Mountain were legally permitted.

The Halls own only one of four acres that are crammed with small buildings, generators, fences and towers.

“Now we just have a lot of homework to do,” said Cheri Howell, Kootenai County planning director.

If the county finds violations, it will ask the companies to take the necessary steps to get permits. If they refuse, the county will take them to court.

“We need to find out who’s got what and what requires permits,” senior planner Rand Wichman said.

Those issues were raised by neighboring landowners John Mack and Doug Lawrence, who opposed the application by AT&T Wireless.

The opinion Wednesday offered little consolation to the two men who submitted volumes of information in the case.

“We are disappointed,” Lawrence said. “We presented substantial evidence that shows the property does not meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The applicant didn’t submit any evidence.”

Mack and Lawrence maintained that the dozens of companies operating the towers don’t have legal easements to cross their land.

“(AT&T Wireless) never had access across my property and they never will get it,” Mack said.

In his decision, Brown required as a condition of approval that AT&T “fully substantiate that the site has the required easement access … at the time of application completeness.”