County planners discuss cell-tower upgrades, permitting and code-enforcement shortfall

5807436 ยท July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Agency members reviewed notices about a wireless-tower eligible facilities request in the Town of Dresden and discussed whether municipal or county permits should track tower upgrades. Members raised concerns about state exemptions, preemption and a county code enforcement budget shortfall.

The Washington County Planning Agency on July 6 noted a notice of an eligible facilities request (tower modification) in the Town of Dresden and discussed county and town authority to require permits and collect fees for cell-tower upgrades.

A member said the state currently treats towers as exempt from certain local requirements: "the state says towers are exempt along with solar," and asked why the county had not been collecting fees when carriers modify towers. That member argued counties need a local code or ordinance to require permits so the assessor can track changes in assessed value.

Another participant noted the county had a code-enforcement budget shortfall and estimated fees of "$8 or $10,000 anytime a company touches one of those cell towers," saying the county was doing inspection and tracking work without collecting consistent fees. A county attorney cautioned there could be state preemption issues and said the office would need to research whether county-level permitting could be required.

Planning staff said the agency received other notices during the agenda, including a two-lot subdivision in the Town of Putnam and a town notice of intent to service an APA-entered agency for an unnamed project.

No formal county-wide code change or permit requirement was enacted at the meeting. Members discussed starting a dialogue about passing local legislation to require building permits or tracking for tower upgrades and asked staff and legal counsel to research preemption and fee-collection authority.

The agency did not set a timeline for any proposed ordinance; members said they would pursue research and raise the issue at future meetings.