No 70-Foot Verizon Tower in our Backyard.

South Tucson · BOA 25-01

A 70-foot cell tower was approved across the alley from a residential block — in a 33-minute hearing where none of the seven required findings were made.

Case
South Tucson Board of Adjustment · BOA 25-01
Site
2425 S. 10th Avenue · APN 118-24-2280 · Magnum Paving lot
Approved
February 25, 2026 · Vote 4–0 · Hearing length 33:46
Tenant
Verizon Wireless · 65-ft pole + 5-ft "stealth palm" canopy
Affected
~12 occupied residences inside the 300-ft radius

This site is the public record neighbors of 2425 S. 10th Avenue have built — documenting why BOA 25-01 should not stand. Not at this site. Not in this neighborhood. Not approved this way. Below: the procedural defects in how the variance was handled, the City's three different characterizations across three forums of what kind of variance it even was, the County's signed determination on the floodplain status of the parcel, the documented differences between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive of Chapter 24 and the standalone Chapter 24 PDF the City currently publishes on its own server, and the existing taller pole half a mile away that, according to the publicly available record, was not discussed at the hearing.

Bryan Sanders · homeowner, 344 W. 35th Street · updated May 18, 2026
Submitted May 17, 2026 · Council action May 19, 2026 — see banner above

The People Power Resolution

The full text below is the proposed Resolution that was delivered to all seven members of the South Tucson Mayor and Council on May 17, 2026, requesting that BOA Decision 25-01 — the 70-foot Verizon tower approval at 2425 S. 10th Avenue — be declared void ab initio. At the regular Council meeting on May 19, 2026 the Council voted to rescind BOA 25-01 pending a full investigation. The text of the Council's adopted motion will be published here when available.

A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of South Tucson, Arizona, Declaring Board of Adjustment Decision 25-01 of February 25, 2026 Void Ab Initio
Resolution No. 26-___ · Adopted [_____], 2026

Whereas, on February 25, 2026, the South Tucson Board of Adjustment voted 4–0 to approve Case BOA 25-01, a variance application for a 70-foot Verizon Wireless cell tower (65-foot monopole plus 5-foot "stealth palm" canopy) at 2425 South 10th Avenue (APN 118-24-2280) in the Magnum Paving parking lot, after a hearing of 33 minutes and 46 seconds;

Whereas, § 24-21(a) of the City Code provides, in mandatory and jurisdictional language: "the board shall not have the power to grant variances from the provisions of this chapter governing the use of land," and the placement of a 70-foot commercial telecommunications tower on a parcel zoned for paving-contractor use is a use of land within the plain meaning of that text;

Whereas, § 24-21(c) of the City Code requires the Board to make seven specific findings on the record before granting any variance, and a review of the official record of the February 25, 2026 hearing shows that none of those seven findings were made on the record by the Board;

Whereas, the application submitted by Pinnacle Consulting on behalf of Verizon Wireless on December 11, 2025 states, on the application form itself, that "the zoning code doesn't allow a cell tower as a standalone use" — an admission by the applicant of the very defect that § 24-21(a) makes jurisdictionally fatal;

Whereas, the City of South Tucson has, through three different officials in three different forums, characterized this approval in at least four mutually inconsistent ways — as a variance (per the application form), as a setback variance (per the applicant's representative at minute 30:08 of the February 25 hearing), as a use variance (per pre-hearing City references), and as a "use permit" approval (per the City Attorney's May 5, 2026 statements at minutes 43:11–43:28 of the Council meeting) — and each of those four characterizations fails its own governing rules;

Whereas, the text of Chapter 24 of the City Code as published by the City of South Tucson on its own server differs from the August 5, 2025 archived version available through Municode in 33 documented respects, including substantive deletions totaling roughly 50,000 characters and the substitution of "the City of Tucson" for "the city" in the mailed-notice provisions at § 24-43, and the City of South Tucson and the City of Tucson are distinct municipal corporations;

Whereas, former § 24-23 of Chapter 24, which was the only express grant to the Board of Adjustment of authority over "temporary uses and permits," appears as "Reserved" in the City's currently published version of the Code, eliminating the only textual basis on which the approval could plausibly be reframed as a "use permit" rather than a variance;

Whereas, at the regular meeting of this Council on May 5, 2026, the Mayor stated, on the record, "...I'm worried about the process right now and that we broke the law," and described the matter as "Scandalous, and potentially scandalous," placing the Council on notice of its concerns about the validity of BOA 25-01;

Whereas, at that same May 5, 2026 meeting, the City Attorney advised the public, on the record, that any appeal of BOA 25-01 had to be filed within 15 days of the decision, when the Arizona statute governing appeals from a municipal board of adjustment (A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K)) provides a 30-day appeal period — and any party who reasonably relied on that misstatement is entitled to equitable tolling, but the present Resolution does not rest on the appeal mechanism;

Whereas, a decision of a Board of Adjustment that exceeds the Board's jurisdiction under its enabling ordinance is void ab initio — that is, void from the beginning — and may be so declared by the legislative body of the municipality without resort to the appeal mechanism, and such a declaration does not extinguish any appellate or judicial remedies that may also be available;

Whereas, the substantive defects in the approval — including a tower height of 70 feet against the former § 24-387(b)(12)(f) cap of 50 feet (40% over), a residential setback of approximately 130 feet against the former § 24-387(b)(12)(e) requirement of twice the tower height (140 feet), a separation distance of approximately 0.6 miles from an existing 80-foot monopole owned by the same applicant against the former § 24-529 one-mile separation rule, and an admitted floodplain encroachment of 12 feet 3 inches against the Pima County Regional Flood Control District's 25-foot Erosion Hazard Area setback as confirmed by the Chief Engineer's May 5, 2026 signed determination — independently render the approval contrary to the substantive requirements of the City Code as it existed at the time the application was filed;

Whereas, the public interest in the integrity of South Tucson's land-use process, in the proper functioning of its Board of Adjustment, and in the protection of the residents within the 300-foot notice radius of 2425 South 10th Avenue, is best served by a clear and immediate statement from the Mayor and Council that BOA Decision 25-01 has no legal effect;

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Mayor and Council of the City of South Tucson, Arizona:
Section 1
Declaration of voidness. The decision of the South Tucson Board of Adjustment in Case BOA 25-01, rendered on February 25, 2026, purporting to grant a variance for a 70-foot Verizon Wireless cell tower at 2425 South 10th Avenue (APN 118-24-2280), is hereby declared void ab initio and of no legal force or effect.
Section 2
Direction to staff. All officers, employees, and agents of the City of South Tucson are hereby directed to issue no permit — including but not limited to building, electrical, mechanical, occupancy, or right-of-way permits — and to take no other administrative action — in reliance upon BOA Decision 25-01.
Section 3
City Attorney direction. The City Attorney is hereby directed to defend this Resolution against any challenge thereto, and is further directed not to expend public funds in defense of the substantive validity of BOA Decision 25-01 itself.
Section 4
Investigation and report. The City Manager is hereby directed to cause an independent investigation to be conducted regarding (a) the 33 documented changes between the August 5, 2025 archived version of Chapter 24 and the currently published version, (b) the process by which BOA Case 25-01 was placed on the Board's agenda and considered, and (c) any related administrative actions, and to deliver a written report to this Council within 90 days of adoption of this Resolution, which report shall be made available to the public.
Section 5
Effective date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Mayor and Council.
Proposed Resolution text as delivered to the Mayor and Council on May 17, 2026.
The supporting memorandum (10 pp.) and the underlying public record are available throughout this site — see Procedural Defects, Code Question, and Documents below.

§ 01 · What Happened

On February 25, 2026, the South Tucson Board of Adjustment voted 4–0 to approve a setback variance for a 70-foot Verizon cell tower in a residential block.

The hearing ran 33 minutes 46 seconds. The vote was unanimous. One Board member said on the record that the agenda packet had not reached him until just before the meeting. Across the entire 33:46 audio recording, no Board member, no staff member, and no representative for the applicant addressed any of the seven findings the South Tucson Code requires before a variance may be granted.

The variance was processed as a setback adjustment under § 24-21, citing § 24-387(b)(12) — a 1970s-era enumeration provision for "radio broadcasting stations, towers and studios." The applicant of record is not Magnum Paving and not the parcel owner; it is a wireless siting representative.

70 ft
Tower height
65-ft pole topped with a 5-ft synthetic-palm canopy, a "stealth" treatment the existing § 24-1 definitions described until they were removed.
4–0
Unanimous approval
No questions raised about the seven required findings. The hearing closed in 33 minutes.
§ 24-43
Notice provision rewritten
§ 24-43 (mailed notice) and § 24-46 (the property-owner protest formula) were both substantively rewritten between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive of Chapter 24 and the standalone Chapter 24 PDF the City currently publishes on its own server — the same window in which this application was being processed. The exact extent of non-receipt is the subject of pending public records requests.

§ 02 · What Kind of Variance Is This, Even?

Three different officials. Three different forums. Three different answers.

What kind of variance was approved on February 25, 2026? The City of South Tucson has answered that question three different ways in three different forums. The contradiction has not been reconciled on the public record.

  1. FORUM 01

    The BOA hearing · February 25, 2026

    Verizon's siting representative described the request, on tape, as "relief on the north and east property lines to allow us to abut [the structure] closer to that open space greenbelt parcel."

    Conclusion: the precise language of a setback variance.

    Cite: Hearing audio, 30:08–30:31.

  2. FORUM 02

    Earlier informal references

    In earlier informal references, city officials referred to the same approval as a use variance.

  3. FORUM 03

    The South Tucson City Council meeting · May 5, 2026

    The City Attorney told councilmembers, on tape: "this was not a setback variance. This was a use permit approval. All cell towers in that zoning require a use permit. The factors to obtain a variance don't apply."

    Conclusion: a third, different characterization — use permit.

    Cite: Council audio, May 5, 2026.

It matters legally — and whichever it is, the procedure failed.

Section 24-21(a) of the South Tucson Code expressly bars the Board of Adjustment from granting use variances. Use changes must proceed through the City Council under § 24-43, with Planning Commission review and a public hearing. None of that happened with BOA 25-01.

Three different characterizations on the public record about what was even being approved raise, on their own, substantial procedural questions about which legal framework actually applied to the approval — and, under whichever framework is the correct one, whether the required findings were made on the record.

"It doesn't look like we followed a process. It looks like somebody changed the code… let's get forensics involved. We have to do an internal investigation… I'm worried about the process right now and that we broke the law."

— South Tucson Mayor Roxanna Valenzuela, May 5, 2026 council meeting (on the record). At the same meeting, the Mayor separately characterized the underlying sequence as "scandalous, and potentially scandalous."

The verbatim quotations above are from Mayor Valenzuela at the public May 5 meeting; they are reproduced here as fair report of those proceedings, not as characterizations adopted from any other source.

The corporate beneficiary

§ 03 · Who is actually asking

Behind every line of this case is one corporation: Verizon.

The wireless siting representative who appeared at the February 25 hearing was not Magnum Paving. He was not the parcel owner of record (Hawesome Properties LLC). He was the agent through whom Verizon Communications, Inc. asked the South Tucson Board of Adjustment to grant a variance — so that Verizon could install Verizon's antenna on top of a new 70-foot pole, fund the host site through Verizon's lease, and expand Verizon's network footprint into a residential block where it does not currently sit.

Verizon, like every wireless carrier that applies for a variance, is responsible for the substance of its own application. The choice to pursue a new structure at a residential alley line — rather than co-locate on an existing FCC-registered taller pole half a mile away — was the applicant's choice. The choice not to put alternative-site analysis on the record was the applicant's choice. The choice to characterize a regulatory wash as "open space greenbelt parcel" was the applicant's choice. None of the City's procedural failures relieve the applicant of the duty to make the showings the law expects.

The asymmetry on the public record

The applicant
Verizon Communications, Inc.
  • Fortune 50 telecommunications corporation
  • National wireless network operator
  • Full-time siting and deployment teams
  • Engineering, legal, and lobbying resources
  • Process tens of thousands of siting applications
The municipality
City of South Tucson
  • ~4,700 residents (2020 Census)
  • ~1.2 square miles, fully enclosed by Tucson
  • ~83% Hispanic per 2020 Census
  • Most affected residents are Spanish-speaking
  • No dedicated municipal land-use department
The neighbors
Residents of the block
  • Individual homeowners
  • ~12 occupied residences in the 300-ft radius
  • ~60% of those reached reported no notice
  • One audio recorder, one records request
  • 344 W. 35th Street is the back fence

What Verizon's representative did not put on the record

  1. No alternative-site analysis. The standard expectation when a wireless carrier proposes a new tower is that the applicant demonstrates, on the record, that no viable existing structure was available for co-location. No such demonstration was made.
  2. No engineering rationale. No coverage map. No explanation for why a 70-foot pole at this specific residential alley line was necessary. No reference to network capacity gaps that an existing taller pole 0.6 miles away could not fill.
  3. No discussion of the existing 80-foot Sun State Towers monopole half a mile away. FCC ASR 1325714, FAA Study 2023-AWP-8714-OE — registered, cleared, taller. Zero mention across 33 minutes and 46 seconds of audio.
  4. No floodplain documentation. The regulated wash north of the parcel was described as "open space greenbelt parcel." The signed Pima County determination came back five months later — establishing regulatory Local Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area on the parcel.
  5. No engagement with the seven required findings. § 24-21(c) requires seven affirmative findings before any variance can be granted. None were addressed at any point in the hearing.

The asymmetry of resources and information access between a Fortune 50 wireless carrier and the residents of a 4,700-person Hispanic-majority enclave is itself part of what a Board of Adjustment is supposed to take into account — not bypass.

§ 04 · The host parcel

Forty-one years on this corner — and one structure that didn't stay where it was built.

A timeline of 2425 S. 10th Avenue, the Magnum Paving lot, from the founding of the company in 1985 through the variance approved in February 2026. The August 2024 storm event is one of the things on this timeline. The seven required findings under § 24-21(c)(5) — that any variance "will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood" — were not made on the record at the BOA 25-01 hearing.

  1. March 1, 1985

    Magnum Paving, Inc. is founded.

    Arizona for-profit corporation, ROC general commercial license A-099088 (and subsequent specialty licenses 119328, 076062). The company sets up paving operations at 2425 S. 10th Avenue, where it has remained for forty-one years.

  2. 1985 – 2024

    Four decades of paving operations on a residential block.

    The 1.7-acre rectangular parcel runs heavy equipment, asphalt operations, drainage culverts. The block to the south is residential — single-family homes, mostly Hispanic-occupied, separated from the lot by a single alley. None of the surrounding homeowners bought their property expecting a 70-foot wireless tower in their viewshed; they bought next to a paving contractor.

    At some point during this period a 20-foot by 60-foot A-frame metal roof structure is built on the parcel.

  3. August 20, 2024

    The 20×60 metal roof structure leaves the parcel during a regional storm event.

    During a documented storm passing over Pima County, the entire 20-foot by 60-foot A-frame metal roof — including its supporting framing — is displaced from the Magnum Paving parcel. It comes to rest on the property at 2320 S. 9th Avenue, destroying fencing, a shed, trees, and a 1,000-gallon water tank. The homeowner's written statement, now part of the South Tucson Council public record, describes the event as one that "almost killed someone."

    The displaced 20×60 metal roof structure as it came to rest on the property at 2320 S. 9th Avenue, photographed the morning after the storm. White and blue corrugated metal roofing visible suspended in the tree canopy; orange traffic cones in the foreground mark off the area. Photographed August 21, 2024 at 7:13 AM with EXIF and GPS metadata preserved.
    August 21, 2024 · 7:13 AM. The displaced metal roof structure suspended in the tree canopy at the 2320 S. 9th Avenue property. Orange traffic cones mark the affected area. Photographed by Bryan Sanders the morning after the storm; EXIF and GPS metadata preserved.

  4. August 21, 2024 · 7:13–7:24 AM

    The aftermath is photographed.

    Twelve photographs with EXIF and GPS metadata intact preserve the displacement trajectory. One image shows both the structure's original anchor location on the Magnum Paving parcel and its final resting position on the affected property — fixing the trajectory on the record.

    Wide panorama from the affected property side, showing the yellow guardrail, the wash, and the displaced structure visible at right horizon. Photographed August 21, 2024 at 7:15 AM.
    7:15 AM · Wide view from the affected property side
    Panorama from the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway. The Magnum Paving lot is visible at left and the displaced metal roof structure is visible at right — both anchor and landing points in a single frame. Photographed August 21, 2024 at 7:24 AM.
    7:24 AM · Magnum lot at left, displaced structure at right — one frame
    Close-up of the corrugated blue metal roof panels mangled and tangled in the green tree canopy after the displacement. Photographed August 21, 2024 at 7:24 AM.
    7:24 AM · Close-up of the corrugated panels in the canopy
    View from the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway looking back at the Magnum Paving lot, showing white shipping containers, equipment, and operational yard — the origin point of the displaced structure. Photographed August 21, 2024 at 7:24 AM.
    7:24 AM · The Magnum Paving lot from the greenway side

    Click any thumbnail for the full-resolution image. Selected frames shown; the complete twelve-photo set with EXIF and GPS metadata will be added to the case archive.

  5. September 27, 2024

    Title to the parcel transfers to a newly named LLC.

    Six weeks after the storm event, title to 2425 S. 10th Avenue transfers from prior ownership to Hawesome Properties LLC. Pima County Recorder Sequence 20242710479. The LLC's mailing address is the same PO Box as Magnum Paving (PO Box 50562, Tucson AZ 85703-0562). The name combines "Haws" — Magnum's president — with "awesome."

  6. October 12, 2025

    Recurrent flooding north of the parcel is photographed.

    Photographic and video evidence documents standing water in the regulatory wash directly north of the parcel — the corridor that an applicant's representative would later characterize, in a different forum, as "open space greenbelt parcel."

  7. Date pending — Public Records Request

    Site selection, application planning, and filing.

    When Verizon began identifying potential tower sites in South Tucson, when the property owner and the wireless siting representative first engaged on this parcel, when site survey and engineering work was performed, when application materials were prepared, and when the variance application was finally filed with the City — none of this is yet on the public record. The May 1, 2026 Public Records Request asks for the complete application file, all supporting materials, and the date-stamped intake. Until those records are produced, this part of the timeline remains a question.

  8. February 25, 2026 · 3:04–3:39 PM

    BOA 25-01: setback variance for a 70-foot Verizon cell tower approved 4–0.

    The South Tucson Board of Adjustment approves the variance in a 33-minute hearing. The 33:46 audio contains no mention of the August 2024 structure failure on the same parcel. The seven required findings under § 24-21(c) — including (5), the affirmative finding that the variance "will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood" — are not made on the record.

    Public-welfare finding § 24-21(c)(5) · A.R.S. § 9-462.06(G)

§ 05 · The Procedural Record

Four distinct procedural defects appear in how the variance was handled.

This is procedural only. It is not a federally-preempted radio-frequency or health challenge — that line of argument is foreclosed by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), and the City Attorney correctly applied that preemption at the hearing.

  1. A

    The seven required variance findings were not made.

    Section 24-21(c) requires the Board to make seven affirmative findings before granting any variance — including no self-imposed hardship, no grant of special privileges, and no detriment to public welfare. Across the entire 33:46 audio, none of those seven findings were addressed by anyone.

    § 24-21(c) · 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)

  2. B

    Notice provisions were rewritten in the same window as the application.

    The City Planner told the Board at hearing 16:05–16:42 that mailed notice went to "every property owner" within the 300-foot radius. In door-to-door follow-up using the City's own mailing list, several property owners within that radius have reported they did not receive the mailed notice. The homeowner at 344 W. 35th Street, plainly within the radius, also received nothing. The exact extent of non-receipt is the subject of pending public records requests. What is already documented, independently of those reports, is that § 24-43 (mailed notice) and § 24-46 (the property-owner protest formula) were both substantively rewritten between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive of Chapter 24 and the standalone Chapter 24 PDF the City currently publishes on its own server — the same window in which this application was being processed.

    § 24-43 · § 24-46 · § 24-78 · A.R.S. § 38-431.02 · A.R.S. § 9-462.06

  3. C

    The use authorization rests on a 1970s "radio broadcasting" clause.

    The City interpreted § 24-387(b)(12) — drafted before consumer cellular service existed in the United States — to encompass a 2026 cellular facility. Federal law treats broadcasting (47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) and personal wireless services (47 U.S.C. § 332) as distinct regulatory categories. The Board of Adjustment is barred from granting use variances under § 24-21(a). The proper remedy is a zoning text amendment by the City Council under § 24-43.

    § 24-387(b)(12) · § 24-2(c) · § 24-21(a) · § 24-43

  4. D

    Pima County's signed determination places the parcel in regulatory floodplain and erosion hazard area.

    On May 5, 2026, Rachel Forney of the Pima County Regional Flood Control District Chief Engineer's office signed a same-day Flood Hazard Information Form determining that a portion of the parcel sits in regulatory Local Floodplain (Special Study #107, § 16.20.050) and Erosion Hazard Area, with the active wash directly to the parcel's north requiring a 25-foot setback under § 16.28.030. At the hearing, the applicant's representative described that exact corridor as "open space greenbelt."

    PCRFCD · Title 16 · § 16.20.050 · § 16.24.050 · § 16.28.030

A separate finding

§ 06 · The Zoning Code Question

What is the operative text of § 24-1 — and on what record?

This is structurally different from how the variance was handled. It is a question about the rules themselves — about whether residents and applicants can rely on the version of the zoning code published by the city.

What we observed

On May 15, 2026, a structured documentary-research mission captured the South Tucson City Code as Municode preserves it in both the August 5, 2025 archive and the current Nov 3, 2025 publication, and computed SHA-256 cryptographic hashes for each chapter. The result establishes, with mathematical certainty, that Chapter 24 is the only chapter that has been completely removed from the live Municode publication. All seventeen other chapters that appear in both versions are byte-identical between them. Both versions are codified through the same ordinance — Ordinance No. 22-07, enacted September 20, 2022 — so no intervening codification can explain the change. The only material change between the two Municode publications is the complete removal of one chapter: the Zoning Code.

With Chapter 24 removed from Municode, the only document the City of South Tucson currently publishes that purports to be its Zoning Code is a standalone PDF hosted on the City's own server. On its face the file looks current — the filename includes "2022" and the server's Last-Modified header is August 7, 2024. The latest amending ordinance cited anywhere inside the body of the document, however, is Ordinance 87-04, from 1987. The PDF omits ten amending ordinances enacted between 2005 and 2022 (Ord. Nos. 05-03, 05-04, 05-05, 06-09, 10-03, 13-05, 19-02, 19-15, 22-01, and 22-05). It omits six substantive code sections, including the entire framework for wireless facilities (§§ 24-356, 24-527, 24-528, 24-529 Commercial Wireless Communications, 24-543, and 24-661 Small Cell wireless facilities). It omits thirteen of the thirty-eight defined terms in § 24-1, of which ten are specific to wireless facilities. A structured side-by-side machine comparison documented 33 legally-significant differences between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive of Chapter 24 and the standalone PDF currently published — a 13.2 percent reduction in length.

One of the seven definitions present in the August 2025 Municode archive of § 24-1 and absent from the standalone PDF the City currently publishes is shown below.

§ 24-1 Definitions · Side-by-side comparison
August 5, 2025 Municode archive of South Tucson Chapter 24
Currently published southtucsonaz.gov — standalone Chapter 24 PDF
AntennaDefined
AntennaNot found
CollocationDefined
CollocationNot found
Communication, commercial wirelessDefined
Communication, commercial wirelessNot found
CommunicationsDefined
CommunicationsNot found
Communications facility, wirelessDefined
Communications facility, wirelessNot found
ConcealDefined
ConcealNot found
DisguiseDefined
DisguiseNot found
Search areaDefined
Search areaNot found
Service areaDefined
Service areaNot found
Wireless communications providerDefined
Wireless communications providerNot found
Ten defined terms specific to wireless facilities are absent from the standalone PDF the City currently publishes. These are the terms that would ordinarily govern the regulatory treatment of a stealth cellular tower with collocation features. The BOA 25-01 hearing occurred on February 25, 2026. Independent contemporaneous evidence (the March 3, 2026 email below) places the original Chapter 24 still on the live Municode publication six days after the BOA's vote on Case 25-01.
Independent dating of when the 50-foot cap was still in effect

A March 3, 2026 email — preserved with full Gmail headers, sent six days after the BOA approval to a sitting member of the South Tucson Board of Adjustment who voted on Case 25-01 — quotes the operative language of the City's then-published § 24-387(12) verbatim: "a cell phone tower is limited to fifty feet or less in height." The email memorializes, in writing, that the 50-foot cap was the operative published code at 2:58 PM on March 3, 2026. The sender — an Arizona-licensed attorney and neighboring property owner — has separately confirmed in a contemporaneous text-message communication that on the date in question she "easily found 24-387(12) on the page where the archived version is now," that "Chap 24 was not separated out like it is now on the zoning code page," and that "it was with the rest of the city code." Her account that Chapter 24 was at the time integrated with the rest of the City Code — rather than separated out as it is on the City's currently-hosted standalone PDF page — is consistent with viewing the live Municode publication, where Chapter 24 was integrated with the other chapters in Municode's standard chapter-by-chapter layout. This account supports the inference that Chapter 24 was still present on the live Municode publication on or about March 2–3, 2026, six days after the BOA's February 25, 2026 vote on Case 25-01. The standalone PDF the City currently publishes on its own server no longer contains the 50-foot cap.

The city's stated position

The City Attorney has stated that the apparent differences between published versions of the code are an artifact of the city moving from one code-publishing vendor to another, and that no substantive change to the operative code has occurred.

What the documentary research found, in the sources checked

Under Arizona law, an amendment to a municipal zoning code is adopted through the process set out in A.R.S. § 9-462.04: a recommendation from the planning agency where one exists; publication of a public-hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days before the hearing; a public hearing before the legislative body; and adoption by ordinance. A lawful amendment generates a documentary trail — an agenda item, a published newspaper notice, meeting minutes recording the hearing, and an ordinance with a number and date.

Documentary research conducted May 11–15, 2026 across the South Tucson city website (meeting agendas, meeting minutes, the city ordinance index, and Planning & Zoning Commission records); the Municode platform on which South Tucson's published code resides; and the Daily Territorial public-notice archive — Pima County's newspaper of record for legal notices — did not locate, in the sources checked, any ordinance that lawfully adopted wireless-related text amendments to Chapter 24 of the South Tucson Code in the window during which Chapter 24 disappeared from the Municode publication. According to the publicly available record:

This is a documented absence in the sources checked, not a positive assertion that no record exists anywhere. The sources searched are listed above; if additional public records produced through the pending records requests contradict the findings, this section will be revised promptly.

The hard questions

These follow from the observable facts. They are not accusations — they are the questions any code-amendment process would be expected to answer in the ordinary course.

  1. When was Chapter 24 removed from the live Municode publication, and by whose action?

    The May 15, 2026 documentary-research mission established with cryptographic certainty that the removal occurred. The exact date and the identity of the person who effected the removal are among the records sought in the public-records requests on file with the South Tucson City Clerk.

  2. What is the operative text of § 24-1 today — are the thirteen absent terms part of the code, or not?

    Residents and applicants in South Tucson rely on the published version of the code. There should be one version that is the operative version, and it should be the one the City publishes.

  3. If the thirteen terms are still operative, why is the standalone PDF on the City's server — the only document the City currently publishes that purports to be its Zoning Code — not the operative version?

    A vendor migration would not remove operative defined terms — it would carry them forward. The standalone PDF on the City's server, on the face of the document, cites no amending ordinance later than 1987 (Ord. 87-04). Whether it functions as the City's current Zoning Code is an open question.

  4. If the thirteen terms are not operative, what ordinance changed them?

    § 24-43 requires that any amendment to Chapter 24 proceed through Planning Commission review and Council adoption with public hearing. We are asking for the ordinance number, the date of introduction, and the date of adoption.

  5. Was there a Planning Commission review?

    If yes, the record should reflect it. If no, the amendment did not follow § 24-43.

  6. Was there a public hearing?

    Same standard. The Planning Commission and Council records should show it.

  7. How does the City Attorney's "incorrect posting that was corrected" account reconcile with what the documentary record establishes?

    The May 15 documentary-research mission established that seventeen chapters are byte-identical across the two Municode versions and one chapter — Chapter 24, the Zoning Code — has been selectively removed. Whether a vendor-side posting error of the kind described would typically produce a hash-verified single-chapter excision is among the open questions.

What we are asking for

A clear, document-supported answer to questions 1 through 7. That is all.

Three formal Arizona Public Records Requests have been filed with the South Tucson City Clerk on this matter to date (78 items total): the initial 42-item request on May 1, 2026; a 30-item Supplemental on May 14, 2026 (items 43–72); and a 6-item Second Supplemental on May 15, 2026 (items 73–78) seeking the personnel-access and audit-log records that would establish when, and by whose action, Chapter 24 was removed from the live Municode publication.

§ 07 · The Bigger Picture

What a Board of Adjustment is for.

Zoning laws are among the most consequential laws on the books. They redirect floodwater. They reshape neighborhoods. They determine what gets built across the alley from your home. A Board of Adjustment exists to apply those laws case-by-case, with care — when literal application would cause genuine hardship. It is not a rubber stamp.

The Board of Adjustment is a check, not a bypass. It is supposed to provide careful, fact-bound scrutiny when applying the zoning code in literal terms would produce an unjust outcome — a parcel with unusual physical conditions, a self-evident gap in the code's coverage, a hardship not of the property owner's making. It exists precisely because zoning laws are powerful, and powerful laws need case-by-case attention when they meet the edge cases.

That role becomes more important, not less, when the relief sought would materially change a neighborhood's character. The Board is supposed to engage that change on the public record. It is supposed to hear from neighbors. It is supposed to ask whether the change is appropriate for the area, whether it imposes a detriment on the public welfare, whether it grants special privileges, whether the relief is the minimum necessary. None of those questions were addressed at BOA 25-01.

What is actually being asked here

The Magnum Paving lot at 2425 S. 10th Avenue has operated as a paving contractor's yard since 1985 — 41 years. The block around it has been residential the entire time. Magnum Paving is the only commercial operation on this side of the street. None of the homeowners on the block bought their properties expecting a 70-foot wireless tower in their viewshed. None of them built their homes anticipating one.

Aerial view of the block at 2425 S. 10th Avenue, South Tucson. The Magnum Paving lot — visible in the upper center with stacked equipment, paving vehicles, and material yards — is the only non-residential parcel on this side of S. 10th Avenue. Every other structure visible in the frame is a single-family home.
Aerial view of the block. The Magnum Paving lot — upper center, identifiable by the stacked equipment, paving vehicles, and material yards — is the only non-residential parcel in the frame. Every other structure visible is a single-family home. The proposed 70-foot Verizon tower would stand at the parcel's southern alley line, where it meets the residential blocks of West 34th and West 35th Streets. The regulatory wash sits to the west; the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway runs along the east. Source: Google Earth.

What is actually being asked of the Board, under the cover of a "setback variance," is permission for a 41-year paving contractor to enter an entirely new line of business: hosting a 70-foot wireless tower for Verizon. That is not a marginal change to an existing operation. That is a transformative change in what the parcel does and how it interacts with the neighborhood.

  1. 01 · Time on the record

    This cannot happen in 33 minutes.

    An operational change of this magnitude requires careful examination of the impact on the neighborhood, of the alternative sites available, of the variance findings the law requires. The 33:46 hearing audio engaged none of those things. The discussion that did occur was about matters that cannot legally support the variance — including a description of the regulated wash north of the parcel as "open space greenbelt parcel." See § 02 for the broader question of what kind of variance was even being approved.

  2. 02 · "SB-2" is not enough

    A zoning category does not authorize any commercial use.

    The fact that the parcel is zoned SB-2 does not mean any conceivable commercial activity is permitted there as of right. SB-2 enumerations were drafted in language broad enough to cover a range of activities — but their interpretation in 2026 has to account for the actual character of the neighborhood, the actual nature of the proposed use, and the actual record of impact. The Board and the Council exist precisely to step in and say, when appropriate, "the zoning category alone is not enough."

  3. 03 · A relic of zoning past

    Magnum Paving is the last commercial holdout on this side of the street.

    The block is residential. The parcels surrounding Magnum on the south, east, and west are single-family homes. There is no other business on this side of the street within view. Whatever Magnum's grandfathered status under earlier zoning codes, the current reality is a contractor's yard inside a residential neighborhood. A 70-foot wireless tower compounds that mismatch — it does not resolve it.

A separate finding

§ 08 · The Co-location Question

The standard remedy was already half a mile away.

Federal and state law on wireless siting consistently encourage co-location — placing new wireless equipment on existing structures rather than building new ones. It is the standard expected analysis. It exists precisely to prevent scenarios like this one: a new 70-foot pole at a residential alley line when an existing taller pole sits half a mile away.

An 80-foot Sun State Towers monopole already exists at 2675 S. Santa Cruz Lane, 0.6 miles west-southwest of the Magnum site. It is FCC-registered (ASR 1325714), FAA-cleared (FAA Study 2023-AWP-8714-OE), and ten feet taller than what Verizon proposes to build at the alley. Co-location on that existing structure would have eliminated the need for a new tower entirely.

Already exists · 0.6 mi WSW
Sun State Towers monopole
  • Height80 ft
  • Address2675 S. Santa Cruz Ln.
  • FCC ASR1325714
  • FAA study2023-AWP-8714-OE
  • StatusActive, registered
Proposed under BOA 25-01
Verizon "stealth palm" tower
  • Height70 ft
  • Address2425 S. 10th Ave.
  • Site typeResidential alley line
  • VarianceSetback (4–0 approved)
  • Co-location reviewedNot on record

What was discussed at the hearing

0:00
of the 33-minute, 46-second hearing audio addressed co-location alternatives. No alternative-site analysis. No FCC ASR data. No engineering rationale for why a new pole was necessary.

The seventh finding required by § 24-21(c) is that the variance be the minimum necessary. If a viable co-location alternative is available 0.6 miles away on an existing FCC-registered taller structure — and, according to the publicly available record, no engineering analysis was placed on the record to address why it was not viable — then on the documented record, the "minimum necessary" finding could not have been supported.

This isn't a procedural footnote. It goes to the heart of the variance analysis. A finding that the relief is the minimum necessary cannot be supported by a record that contains zero discussion of the more restrained alternative sitting on an FCC-registered, FAA-cleared, taller structure half a mile away.

Why co-location is the standard

Co-location reduces visual impact, reduces structural failure surface area, reduces ongoing maintenance footprint, and avoids the cumulative effect of multiple new structures across a small geographic area. Federal wireless-siting law, FCC guidance, and standard local-government ordinances across Arizona all encourage or require co-location analysis as part of any new-tower application. The expectation is that an applicant will demonstrate, on the record, that no viable existing structure was available — before a new structure can be approved. That demonstration was not made here.

What we are asking for

An on-the-record co-location analysis as part of any reconsideration of BOA 25-01: which existing FCC-registered structures within the relevant coverage radius were evaluated, with what engineering input, and on what basis a new structure was deemed necessary. This is the analysis the Board should have seen before voting.

§ 09 · Evidence

The signed determination — and the County's own map.

The corridor north of the parcel was described to the Board on the public record as "open space greenbelt parcel." Five months later, the Pima County Regional Flood Control District signed a same-day determination establishing that the parcel sits in regulatory Local Floodplain (Special Study #107 — City of South Tucson) and that there is a regulatory Erosion Hazard Area setback of 25 feet from the bank of the wash directly to the north.

The signed Pima County Regional Flood Control District Flood Hazard Information Form for 2425 S. 10th Avenue, dated May 5, 2026, completed by Rachel Forney. Items 4 and 5 are checked 'Yes, portion of parcel' — Local Floodplain (Special Study #107 City of South Tucson) and Erosion Hazard Area (north of parcel, 25 ft setback).
The Flood Hazard Information Form. Signed May 5, 2026 by Rachel Forney, Pima County Regional Flood Control District. Item 4 establishes regulatory Local Floodplain on a portion of the parcel (Special Study #107, City of South Tucson). Item 5 establishes Erosion Hazard Area on a portion of the parcel, with a 25-foot setback from the bank of the wash directly north. Download the signed PDF →
The Pima County GIS Flood Hazards Map for 2425 S. 10th Avenue, dated May 5, 2026. Pink shaded areas are RFCD Local Floodplains, the yellow-outlined zone on the parcel is the 25-foot Erosion Hazard Area setback, and the blue arrow shows the wash flow direction across the corridor north and east of the parcel.
The Flood Hazards Map. Issued by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District GIS team for 2425 S. 10th Avenue on the same day. Pink shading: RFCD Local Floodplain. Yellow outline on the parcel: the 25-foot Erosion Hazard Area setback. Blue arrow: wash flow direction. The note in the bottom right reads: "Small area of property within locally mapped floodplain. 25 ft erosion hazard setback associated with regulatory wash north of the property." Download the map PDF →
"We wanted to be sensitive to setbacks into the neighborhood. So the site location of this is we're asking for relief on the north and east property lines to allow us to abut it closer to that open space greenbelt parcel." — Verizon's siting representative to the Board, hearing audio 30:08–30:31

Photos at the property line — May 5, 2026

The morning the determination was signed, after a routine spring rain — not a storm event. Standing water in the linear depression directly against Magnum Paving's north property line. EXIF GPS metadata preserved.

View north across the alley showing standing water in the regulatory wash, Magnum Paving heavy equipment behind the chain-link fence, and stacked drainage culverts.
Across the alley, looking north — May 5, 2026, 7:02 AM. Standing water in the linear depression directly against Magnum Paving's north property line. The yellow-and-black bollards delineate the flood corridor. Behind the fence: a CAT excavator, graders, and stacked corrugated drainage culverts. 32.1940°N · -110.9731°W
Wider angle showing residential houses on the left adjacent to the Magnum Paving contractor's yard with heavy equipment.
Residential block meets contractor's yard. Single-family homes (left) sit roughly 60 feet from the proposed tower base location. The 70-foot pole, if built, would be the tallest structure within 2 km of the site.
Standing water between flood-control bollards on the residential side of the parcel boundary.
Same morning, looking east. Standing water on the residential side of the boundary. This is what the County's Chief Engineer's office calls a "regulatory wash" — and what the variance application called "open space greenbelt."

§ 10 · Timeline

How we got here, what's happened, and what's coming.

§ 11 · The Documentary Record

Read the original documents — every claim on this site is sourced.

These are the procedural-review materials provided to elected officials and the press across May 5–15, 2026, together with the Pima County floodplain determination. The full archive — hearing audio, transcripts, EXIF-locked photographs, the side-by-side machine diff, the cryptographic capture of the Municode publication, the personnel-access and audit-log records sought through the public-records requests — is available on request.

Memo · 5 pages

Memo to City of Tucson Mayor & Council

Why Tucson has a regional stake in an adjacent municipality's procedural review — floodplain continuity, comparative WCF practice, civil-rights resonance.

Download PDF (40 KB)
Memo · 6 pages

Memo to the Arizona Federal Delegation

Procedural concerns addressed to Senators Kelly & Gallego and Representative Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07), in whose district this falls.

Download PDF (45 KB)
Slide deck · 10 slides

Council Presentation Deck

Ten slides walking the documented record: the parcel and its 300-foot notice radius, the February 25 hearing timeline, the floodplain and erosion-hazard finding from the County's Chief Engineer, the 33 documented changes between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive and the standalone Chapter 24 PDF the City currently publishes, the missing wireless-facilities framework, and the South Tucson Mayor's on-the-record statements from May 5.

Download PDF (459 KB)
County determination

Pima County Flood Hazards Map

The signed determination from PCRFCD Chief Engineer's office establishing regulatory Local Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area on the parcel.

Download PDF (1.9 MB)
Press memo · 10 pages · v6

Press Memo (May 13, 2026)

The current journalist-facing handout: lead, three forums / three answers, the five public-record items, the 33-change Code Diff, the self-imposed-hardship problem, the May 13, 2026 documentary research findings on lawful adoption, and the City Attorney's stated position tested against the documented record.

Download PDF (~150 KB)
Memo · 4 pages · May 15, 2026

Supplemental Memorandum to Pima County Supervisor Dr. Matt Heinz

Updated memorandum to the Supervisor for District 2 incorporating the May 9 machine diff (33 documented changes between the August 5, 2025 Municode archive of Chapter 24 and the standalone PDF the City of South Tucson currently publishes) and the May 15 documentary-research mission establishing, with cryptographic certainty, that Chapter 24 is the only chapter completely removed from the live Municode publication.

Download PDF (~83 KB)
Public Records Request · 4 pages · May 15, 2026

Second Supplemental Public Records Request (items 73–78)

Filed with the South Tucson City Clerk on May 15, 2026 as the third installment in the public-records inquiry on this matter (78 items total across the three filings). Items 73–78 seek the personnel-access and audit-log records that would establish when, and by whose action, Chapter 24 was removed from the live Municode publication and the standalone PDF was uploaded to the City's own server.

Download PDF (~78 KB)
Available on request

Hearing audio & transcript · Records · Photos

Full 33:46 BOA hearing MP3, timestamped transcript, the three public records requests filed with the South Tucson City Clerk (78 items total across May 1, May 14, and May 15, 2026) with stamped receipts, neighbor statements documenting non-receipt of notice, EXIF-locked flood photos. Email below to request.

Email Bryan to request

§ 12 · How to Help

Concrete things you can do — to support a clean investigation and a proper process going forward.

The goal is plain: BOA 25-01 should not stand, and any future application at this site should go through the process the law requires. Not at this site, not in this neighborhood, not approved through a 33-minute hearing where seven required findings went un-made and the City can't agree on what kind of approval it even was. On May 19, 2026 the South Tucson Council voted to rescind BOA 25-01 pending a full investigation. The items below are how residents, neighbors, and press can support that investigation and keep the path forward honest.

  1. Stay engaged with the Mayor and Council through the investigation.

    On May 19, 2026 the South Tucson Council voted to rescind BOA 25-01 pending a full investigation into the application and the overall process. The Council holds Regular Agenda Meetings the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays at 6:00 PM, 1601 S. 6th Avenue. Public comment is open. Notes from neighbors that thank the Council for rescinding BOA 25-01 and ask that the investigation be thorough and public-facing carry real weight. The chair has said on the record that the city may have "broken the law" in how this variance was processed; that investigation is what residents are now asking the Council to complete.

  2. If you're on the 300-foot mailing list, check whether you got notice.

    If your address sits within 300 feet of 2425 S. 10th Avenue and you didn't receive a mailed notice for the February 25 hearing, please email Bryan. The pattern matters.

  3. If you're a Tucson resident, ask Mayor Romero and the City Council to weigh in against this tower.

    South Tucson is an enclave entirely surrounded by Tucson. Stormwater, neighborhoods, and civic standing all spill across the border. Tucson's voice — even an informal one calling on South Tucson to deny this tower and re-open the application properly — would carry.

  4. If you're press, the documentary record is open.

    Hearing audio, signed County determination, EXIF-locked photographs, public records request with stamped receipt — all available. Site walkthroughs welcome.

  5. Call the applicants directly — courteously, on the record. Ask them to stop.

    The variance is being pursued by two specific entities: Verizon Communications, Inc. as the wireless carrier and corporate beneficiary, and Magnum Paving as the host parcel operator. Either can end this on their own. Verizon can withdraw the application. Magnum Paving can decline to host the tower. Calls and emails — civil, fact-based, identifying yourself — go on the public record and are part of how citizens engage with corporate decision-making.

    Verizon Communications, Inc.

    Customer Service: 1-800-922-0204

    Corporate HQ: (212) 395-1000

    When connected, ask to be routed to the team that handles wireless tower siting in Arizona. Reference variance "South Tucson BOA 25-01, 2425 S. 10th Avenue."

    Suggested ask: "I'm calling about Verizon's application for a 70-foot wireless tower at 2425 S. 10th Avenue in South Tucson. Do not build this tower at this site. An existing FCC-registered 80-foot pole sits half a mile away — FCC ASR 1325714. Withdraw the application and put your antenna on that existing structure, or somewhere else that is not the alley line of a residential block."

    Magnum Paving

    Steve Haws (President): (520) 441-8988

    Email: Steve@magnumpaving.com

    Magnum Paving is the operating tenant at 2425 S. 10th Avenue. The parcel owner of record is Hawesome Properties LLC, which shares a mailing address with Magnum.

    Suggested ask: "I'm a neighbor / Tucson resident calling about the proposed 70-foot Verizon cell tower at 2425 S. 10th Avenue. Please decline to host this tower. Withdraw your support for the variance. The block surrounding your lot is residential, and the City itself can't agree on what kind of variance was even granted."

    One ground rule. This is civic engagement, not harassment. Identify yourself, state your concern in one sentence, ask a specific question, thank whoever takes the call. Don't yell, don't repeat-call, don't show up uninvited. Volume of calls plus discipline is what makes the public record visible — anything else gets the request dismissed and harms the case.

  6. If you know land-use law, we're listening.

    This isn't an RF/health argument and it isn't anti-infrastructure. It's a procedural review based on the public record. Pro bono guidance, amicus consideration, or a half-hour phone call would all be valuable.

Direct Contact

Bryan Sanders

344 W. 35th Street, Tucson, AZ 85713

(520) 333-7587

bransan@gmail.com

What I am asking for

In one sentence:

That this tower not be built — at this site, in this neighborhood, anywhere in our backyard. Verizon can withdraw the application. Magnum Paving can decline to host. The City can review and reverse. Any of those paths produces the right outcome.

On the procedure:

That the City of South Tucson take a documented second look at BOA 25-01 — the seven required findings, the notice question, the floodplain jurisdiction, what kind of variance this even was, and the published text of § 24-1 — on the public record, with the documents in hand.