By Soncirey Mitchell
Reader Staff
After a series of meetings spanning two months, the Bonner County Board of Commissioners unanimously denied a conditional use permit application for a communication tower near Highway 95 in Elmira. The Feb. 26 decision comes after the BOCC denied a similar proposal in Oldtown, which has resulted in yet-unresolved litigation with Verizon Wireless.
Property owners James and Sandy Dolyniuk submitted the original application for the 140-foot tower in 2023, which would have been built by Harmoni Towers and managed by Verizon Wireless. The proposed site was located on a 20-acre parcel more than 500 feet from the nearest existing structure and 40 feet from the property’s mapped wetlands. Developers intended to use the tower to improve cell service in the Elmira area, which Radio Frequency Engineer Steven Kennedy of the Arizona-based Biwabkos Consultants, representing the applicants, argued constituted a “significant gap” in coverage.
The BOCC approved the CUP in 2024; however, after 20 nearby landowners filed for judicial review, the court vacated the decision and remanded the matter to the county. The court did not rule against the applicants, but stated that, “Harmoni has failed to offer probative evidence sufficient to support its claim that the proposed tower will be compatible with the surrounding community,” according to the Bonner County staff report.
The commissioners heard the application “de novo” — that is, from the beginning, free from previous decisions — across two, four-hour meetings on Jan. 15 and Feb. 11, reconvening Feb. 26 for another two-and-a-half hours of deliberation. The BOCC ultimately voted to deny the CUP, ruling that the proposed tower conflicted with the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan.
“I find that the proposed CUP is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, since the plan seeks to ‘preserve the rural character’ of our county and placing a [140-foot] tall cell tower in the … view of the neighboring properties will neither preserve nor enhance the rural character of those rural-residential and agricultural-forestry designated parcels that are near the subject parcel,” said BOCC Chair Brian Domke.
“For me, also, the proposed cell tower is not visually similar to the power lines that exist on the subject parcel or in the surrounding area,” he added. “Instead, the proposed CUP will negatively impact the rural character of those parcels by introducing a new and unique commercial infrastructure that is inconsistent and out of character with the existing rural context.”
At the Jan. 15 and Feb. 11 meetings, homeowner Joan Esnayra and attorney Norm Semanko, of Boise-based Parsons, Behle and Latimer, argued on behalf of the appellants that instead of building a new tower, Verizon could collocate on an existing tower, identify a new site or reduce the proposed tower’s height.
Kennedy argued that the existing towers would either not meet Verizon’s needs or are already at capacity for the number of satellites in use; however, the commissioners found that the applicants did not consider all available towers in the area.
“By contrast, the appellant provided an alternative site for collocation that was not identified and evaluated by the applicant, which is the Round Mountain Tower site owned by EL Internet [Northwest],” said Domke, arguing that, because an alternative site exists, the BOCC’s denial does not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by “materially inhibit[ing]” Verizon’s ability to provide cell service.
The applicants now have the opportunity to appeal the decision, relocate the tower or file a legal challenge. As of press time, their counsel, Josh Leonard, of Boise-based Clark Wardle, LLP, did not respond to a request for comment on his clients’ next steps.
