By Tricia Toney
Despite prevailing in their recent lawsuit against Saguache County, Villa Grove cell tower opponents once again lost their battle to halt the project.
It was not a quick or simple process.
In June of 2024, the County Commissioners first approved the tower in a 2-to-1 vote. They pointed to state and federal laws that prevent local governments from blocking competition between phone companies. Following advice from legal counsel, the commissioners believed they were legally required to approve the tower.
Nine Villa Grove residents sued the county over the permit approval. They argued that the laws the commissioners used didn’t apply and that local zoning rules should decide what’s allowed.
In February 2025, District Court Judge Amanda Hopkins sided with the residents. She didn’t cancel the permit but ordered the process to start over. That meant new reviews by the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners.
Even though Viaero knew about the lawsuit, the company continued building the tower based on the original permit. By the time of the second round of hearings, the 195-foot tower, power station, and fence were already completed.
At public meetings last year, local residents strongly opposed the tower. They said it would ruin the scenic views, and go against agricultural zoning rules. They also raised concerns about health risks from electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) linked to 5G technology.
Government studies say that a cell phone held close to the body gives off more EMFs than a tower at a distance. Because of this, the government does not consider cell towers a health threat. Some private studies dispute this.
Kyle DeNardo, Site Acquisition Specialist for Viaero Wireless, explained during multiple meetings that it had been challenging to find a location for the new tower to improve service between Villa Grove and Poncha Pass. The company started looking in 2019. They found five possible sites, but none worked out—except the one closest to Villa Grove.
At this year’s hearings by the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, residents again came out in large numbers to speak against the tower. They called it unsightly, unnecessary, and not in line with local zoning rules. Many told elected officials that their job is to listen to their constituents, not to serve corporations.
While most speakers opposed the tower, two residents said the expanded service would greatly improve life on their remote properties. A local fire department representative said that the new cell tower would allow them to better locate emergency callers.
Amber Wilson, head of Land Use, said the Sheriff’s Office also supported the tower for safety reasons.
Planning Commission member Michelle Beelendorf-Byer asked what legal steps would be needed to compel Viaero to remove the tower if the permit was denied. No lawyer was available at the meeting to answer this question.
After more than two hours of commentary, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval, mainly for the improved safety of travelers through the area.
A week later, after more public comments and repeated questions for DeNardo, the County Commissioners voted again—2 to 1—to approve the permit. The two in favor again cited safety concerns.
Commissioner Liza Marron voted no, as she did last time. She noted the receipt of 92 letters against the tower, and 2 letters in favor. Marron said that language in federal statutes and the local land development code can be seen as grey areas when it comes to citing decisions. Marron said she felt it was her duty to represent the residents who spoke out against the project.
Still, the land use permit was approved. This time, however, the commissioners added several conditions. The tower will be painted desert beige, to help it blend into the scenery better. Also, Viaero must remove the tower within 12 months of the date when the FCC declares cell phones obsolete. (Satellite phones may prove a superior technology.)
Opponents of the Villa Grove cell phone tower view this situation as a failure of government to represent the will of the people. Proponents of the tower see this ruling as a sign of progress in rural America. An objective observer might see the long, drawn-out process as an example of democracy in action.