[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6564545,"mediaKeyId","3277929-2e49d72197e3a77ec36f398956f1ee98","parentId",3277929,"title","Fountain Hills planners review draft wireless ordinance; commissioners press for testing, site and process safeguards","audioSeconds",2737,"startMs",3814000,"endMs",6551000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277929-2e49d72197e3a77ec36f398956f1ee98&start=3814&end=6551","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277929-2e49d72197e3a77ec36f398956f1ee98/thumbnail_3814000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6564545/Fountain-Hills/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Fountain-Hills-planners-review-draft-wireless-ordinance-commissioners-press-for-testing-site-and-process-safeguards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564545-40493f591b5417f3c324c637dd5bd799/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201066&Signature=O~CJ0v99iW2PLQVjtK0Nvzh~GxQhG4xl9qCIKt-M7iZSo6fwgVePTJRUym7HCjVrP-kOvESEnkeAa3CepgN~bmK-n93ykFG5qKlyOhOmE~aaIJMjN6whLVUE0T-AHK4rH25ox15IKnbeOzeytRzXUlnXHZZYfI1xPH438vICdWkfEcGbwEgYYcUvglzURGUKqVpRAD7zrayYQlZWoMHPWKe5iw7JmtGK8bkaW-grT7cWmtVnZdxyyw3l817LlJlu9eJAxg3-cifLtLmfg6G8AcSBOLPGZY7JBn7P-rxRDxeMJrKt2iEws6j4n87mYydQGCK6H9iF04JJ4KMPDPjngA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Fountain Hills","date","2025-05-07T04:58:49Z","article","The Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on May 12, 2025 reviewed initial draft revisions to Chapter 17 of the town zoning ordinance addressing wireless communications — including towers, antennas and small-cell facilities — and provided staff feedback on design standards, review process timing and community protections.

Director Westley presented a draft that incorporated language from an outside model (Campanelli) and the commission's earlier input. Commissioners asked that, where feasible, equipment be placed in underground vaults, that residential separation distances be preserved (a proposed standard of 500 feet with Council authority to allow down to 300 feet only with written justification was discussed), and that the town retain options to require independent testing and consultant review.

Commissioner Corrigan pressed for measurable performance requirements and cited alternatives to drive tests, including \"drop call logs\" from providers. Corrigan asked whether the draft included a drop-call/log option; Westley confirmed it is included as an alternative to provider drive-test documentation. Commissioner Gray urged stronger upfront noise-mitigation language, suggesting design-level decibel (dB) targets rather than open-ended requirements. Commissioners also debated whether some modification reviews should be handled administratively or brought to P&Z and Town Council; staff said all new towers would proceed through public review while minor modifications could remain administrative, but commissioners raised concern that an administrative pathway might miss important public impacts.

The draft includes federal timing constraints (so-called \"shot clocks\") that limit how long the town can take to process wireless applications; staff noted meeting some federal timing requirements could be challenging if an application required review at multiple bodies but that the ordinance permits tolling and extensions in defined circumstances. Commissioners asked staff to ensure the ordinance language meshes with the small-cell/right-of-way work the town plans to review next month.

On technical safeguards, commissioners asked staff to: require annual testing and make clear the owner/operator bears testing responsibilities; specify when the town may order third-party testing; require adequate insurance and require a mechanism to fund removal of abandoned facilities (staff acknowledged removal-cost estimate language exists but a bond requirement needs to be added); and consider balloon tests to show visual impacts at final proposed heights. The commission also discussed whether the town should re-engage a telecom-specialized attorney for a final review of the ordinance before it goes to Council; Commissioner Koryan suggested recommending that Council rehire or consult a specialist such as Campanelli or another firm.

Public comment urged the commission to review outside model codes (COPEC, Ithaca examples were cited by a speaker) and to include strict provisions on insurance, independent monitoring and comprehensive mapping of all existing antennas, not only cellular towers. \"The shot clocks define when an application is submitted to the town — a timer starts — and there's like 4 classifications of work that needs to happen so the tower goes up in 180 days,\" Laurie (Lori) Troller told the commission, explaining federal timing rules and urging rigorous monitoring and insurance language.

Next steps: staff will continue refining Chapter 17 language, coordinate the Chapter 16/right-of-way small-cell discussion next month, and return to the commission with a revised draft; commissioners asked staff to add missing items (bond language for removal costs, balloon testing, alternative-site analyses and clearer independent-testing and insurance provisions) and to consider a formal outside legal review before finalizing an ordinance to forward to Town Council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 12, 2025 Planning and Zoning Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners reviewed an early draft of proposed Chapter 17 revisions covering wireless communications (towers, antennas, small cells). Discussion focused on underground vaulting, separation distances, shot clocks, independent testing, insurance and whether to retain outside telecom legal review.","taxTitle","Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",58389,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6564550,"Fountain Hills planners discuss Chapter 6 sign rules; motion to recommend no change withdrawn",2988,703000,3691000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3277929-2e49d72197e3a77ec36f398956f1ee98&start=703&end=3691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3277929-2e49d72197e3a77ec36f398956f1ee98/thumbnail_703000.jpg","/articles/6564550/Fountain-Hills/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Fountain-Hills-planners-discuss-Chapter-6-sign-rules-motion-to-recommend-no-change-withdrawn","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564550-0a3ec426a36fbc39aacc3f80057034eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201066&Signature=Lq~wRxWPGz10Nl786JXVbfqTaPvhs4kB7MGgLzkRE9fPCA57ieEBzy1Qs4FYcyYPGkaceif7eEzDqWQ70RbAp2puHNCVj~iftL49bPJ5Vx5T7NS-Hv0ykhjt8wyI3pvpW6azkyZVrw71nhonQMND58yD~3Jb4MG84s4wvuR~F8H4verp9RKw-89OH9UThI0~FepXo8Lfl~LT8HjToaSPvHrrxZMxhnY61GmNh63AtSKOpzmTKyit5lLrcKGmGJucOHIUefS3s52Is-VAlYRu7V~LXKaW7QHl0KfAoqd2k~aRT31KR6AquyRm17T-fxTtKQ9CtLv8tqU1HO7is~yn4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning and Zoning Commission members in Fountain Hills reviewed potential updates to Chapter 6 of the town zoning ordinance on May 12, 2025, including provisions for A-frame, banner, yard, railing and wall signs, but did not adopt changes after a motion to recommend no change was withdrawn.

The discussion grew from Council direction earlier in the year to re-evaluate the sign code. John (staff) summarized current rules: one A-frame sign per business (two if two public entrances), a six-square-foot limit for a single A-frame (nine square feet cumulative for two), and display only between sunrise and sunset. He said Council had suggested ideas including allowing up to four A-frame signs and increasing size limits, and asked the commission for feedback.

Commissioners broadly expressed concerns about visual clutter if allowances were loosened. \"I just my my biggest concern is we increase the number of A-frame signs, and if every business in the village put up 4 A-frame signs, it would look like a flea market,\" Chairman Kovacevic said. Commissioner Corey and others said they supported businesses but worried that more signs left out overnight would create clutter; Corey suggested using the Special Use Permit (SUP) process for case-by-case exceptions. Commissioner Slossberg opposed leaving signs up overnight, and Commissioner Gray said the current ordinance was \"pretty **** good\" and questioned whether there had been a groundswell of merchant complaints to justify changes.

Staff described current banner rules: an initial permit valid 30 days with up to four renewals (totaling up to 150 days) and a $50 renewal fee; Council discussion included extending initial permits to 90 days and allowing renewals to approach a year for special cases. On yard signs, the present code allows two per residential property; commissioners discussed allowing as many as four during election season while keeping limits during other times and possibly imposing short-term limits (30–60 days) for contractor/for-sale signs to avoid perpetual display.

Commissioners debated adding formal railing-sign language because some businesses in alcoves lack street visibility, while others argued railing signs risked encroaching on façade signage and would likely be resisted by shopping-center owners and building landlords. The commission also discussed the example of Spooner Physical Therapy, whose site configuration prompted questions about whether additional wall signs could be allowed in lieu of freestanding or projecting signs.

Toward the close of the sign discussion Commissioner Proctor moved that the commission recommend no changes to the current sign ordinance; the motion was seconded. After staff advised that the matter had not been advertised as an action item and that staff planned further review, Proctor withdrew the motion and his second was withdrawn, leaving no formal recommendation to Council. Staff said they would review the transcript and deliberations, consider input, and — if warranted — bring a text-amendment proposal back to the commission for a noticed meeting before forwarding anything to Town Council.

Public comment included a short statement from Betsy LaVoy of the Chamber of Commerce, who provided letters from the Avenue Merchants Association and the Chamber board supporting downtown strategies and the merchants' sign preferences. \"It brings with it a lot of weight of what the business community would like to see happen,\" LaVoy said.

Next steps: staff will review the verbatim record, refine options (including possible SUP pathways for unique cases), and schedule a future, publicly noticed commission meeting if a text amendment is proposed. No amendments were adopted at the May 12 meeting.","Planning and Zoning Commissioners reviewed proposed updates to Chapter 6 (sign regulations), debated allowances for A-frame, banner, yard, railing and wall signs, and withdrew a motion that would have recommended no changes. Staff will refine language and may return with a formal text amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fountain Hills planners review draft wireless ordinance; commissioners press for testing, site and process safeguards

Fountain Hills planners discuss Chapter 6 sign rules; motion to recommend no change withdrawn