City staff recommended limited amendments to Brighton's land use code governing wireless communication facilities after briefing council on a new Colorado law that changes how certain small modifications to cell infrastructure are regulated.

Planning Division staff said House Bill 25 10 56 (as cited in the presentation) will take effect Jan. 1 and alters the local regulatory landscape by restricting a city's ability to require permits for "minor modifications" to existing wireless facilities and by making review timeframes more consequential if a municipality fails to act. Grace Shipman, a presenter from staff, told the council: "The law does not limit the local government's ability to regulate the design and locations of new wireless facilities. The city just simply can't require permits for minor modifications for existing wireless sites."

What the law changes

Staff highlighted two central effects: first, local governments can no longer require permits for certain "eligible facilities requests" (example: swapping an existing antenna for a similar replacement). Second, the new state law can cause an application to be "deemed approved" if the city does not meet the state/federal review timeframes, rather than leaving only a lawsuit remedy. Staff proposed removing a reference to a "site improvement permit" in Article 10, because the new law prevents requiring permits for the minor modifications covered by state/federal definitions.

Process and safeguards

Staff advised the council that the city can still require ancillary permits (for example, right-of-way or trenching permits) and can deny or recommend denial for incomplete applications within the statutory timelines. "If we come up against kind of the end of the clock or the end of our time frame, staff, if it's in our possession, we would deny the application. Or if it's in the possession of a public body, we would recommend that you all deny the application if we need more information," the presenter said. Staff also said the city and applicant can mutually agree to timeline extensions to avoid unintended approvals.

Areas needing clarification

Council members asked for more detail on what counts as a "substantial change" versus a minor modification. Staff described that federal law defines a "substantial change" with specific technical thresholds (for instance, certain percentage increases in tower height or the addition of an antenna array), and staff said they will consult the federal definitions when reviewing future applications. Council Member Green asked whether adding another antenna or increasing antenna size would be "minor"; staff said the answer depends on federal statutory thresholds and site details.

Next steps

Staff recommended code edits to update terminology, align local timelines with the more restrictive statutory deadlines and add clearer procedural language for staff and applicants. Several council members asked staff to ensure timeframes are explicit in any code text and to outline how conditional use permits and public hearings (which require more time) will be handled. No formal vote was taken; staff will return with draft ordinance language.