Debate over ZTA 25-11: carriers seek expedited temporary towers; residents ask tighter limits and notice

The Montgomery County Council on Sept. 16 heard public testimony on ZTA 25-11, a zoning text amendment that would create a new limited use for temporary telecommunications facilities, set approval procedures, and amend provisions for telecommunications towers and temporary commercial uses. The Planning, Housing and Parks Committee scheduled a work session on Oct. 6, 2025.

Why it matters: ZTA 25-11 would create a predictable administrative path for temporary cell towers and other portable network assets used for emergencies, planned events or temporary capacity needs. Supporters said the change is needed to maintain service continuity during infrastructure repairs and large events; critics said the proposal is overly broad, raises public‑health and transparency concerns and could erode local oversight.

Planning Board and carriers: Benjamin Berberdt, representing the Montgomery County Planning Board, told the council the board supports creating a temporary‑facility category but offered edits. He said many planning diagrams for how optional-method developments function rely on flag lots and that the board proposed narrowly permitting certain lots without frontage only when necessary to place the multiunit building abutting the corridor. On ZTA 25-11 he described a drafting oversight: the proposed text exempts building permits for towers 80 feet or less erected for 30 days or less, and requires permits for towers 80 feet or taller, but “remains silent on what to do if it's less than 80 feet high but erected for more than 30 days.” The planning board recommended that such situations require a building permit.

Industry supporters argued for speed. James Heo, director of state and local government affairs for Verizon Mid-Atlantic, said the current zoning process can prevent timely deployment of temporary network assets and cited an example where relocation of equipment from a water tank took nearly two and a half years because applicants had to pursue the permanent process. Katie McAvoy, AT&T Maryland external affairs lead, said the ZTA would “establish a more predictable and efficient process” to respond to maintenance, events, and emergencies and help public-safety communications.

Residents and public-safety advocates pushed for limits and transparency. Catherine Katzen urged the council to “reject CTA 25-11 in its entirety” or narrow qualifying reasons for temporary towers to true emergencies (for example, destruction or impairment of an antenna support structure during a disaster) and to harmonize setbacks and height limits with monopole tower standards. Theodora Scorato and Susan Lavin raised long‑term radio‑frequency (RF) exposure and federal‑rule concerns; Scorato noted the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 1996 RF limits needed explanation on long‑term exposure and urged Montgomery County to require independent monitoring, setbacks from schools, and transparent oversight rather than broad local preemption.

Other points of contention: several speakers asked the council to remove provisions that would give the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) discretionary authority to approve reduced setbacks or increased heights without fuller public notice and independent findings; others asked that any temporary‑tower approval include electronic notice to municipalities and civic associations and public comment opportunities at the tower committee.

What’s next: ZTA 25-11 will proceed to a Planning, Housing and Parks Committee work session on Oct. 6, 2025. Advocates on both sides asked the council to revise the text to add clearer emergency definitions, require permits in certain circumstances, harmonize design/setback standards with monopole rules, and strengthen notice and public‑comment procedures before DPS approvals.

Ending: The hearing underscored competing priorities: carriers and some county staff frame ZTA 25-11 as a needed operational tool for continuity of service and public safety; residents and health‑concern advocates pressed for tightened scope, additional transparency and stronger technical safeguards.