Fountain Hills Planning Commission reviews draft wireless-communications ordinance; commissioners press vaulting, testing and insurance details

The Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on May 12 reviewed an initial draft rewrite of Chapter 17 of the zoning ordinance, which covers wireless communications, towers and antennas.

Director John Westlake presented a draft built from a consultant model and prior commission direction; commissioners probed definitions, application types, review timelines (the federal “shot clocks”), equipment‑vaulting preferences and compliance testing and insurance requirements.

The draft aims to fold in industry-standard definitions and TCA/FCC time limits while also strengthening local safeguards. Staff said they attempted to make underground vaulting the standard for equipment where feasible and to require above-grade installations only when vaulting is impracticable. Commissioners asked staff to clarify language on required baffling and noise metrics for generator or backup equipment and to make the underground preference explicit in the application criteria.

Separation and siting standards were discussed: staff said they drafted a 500‑foot baseline separation from residential areas with a council option to approve down to 300 feet if the applicant provides justification; commissioners suggested flagging small-cell exceptions in advance so municipal policy does not inadvertently conflict with future small‑cell right‑of‑way rules.

Several commissioners sought stronger testing and monitoring provisions. Staff added an annual testing requirement; commissioners debated whether testing reports should be prepared by independent third parties (and whether the town or the provider should bear that cost). Commissioner Gray argued for independent third‑party testing to ensure accuracy and avoid “in‑house” provider reports being treated as rubber stamps. Staff confirmed the ordinance intends provider responsibility for required reporting and cited the town’s authority to require independent random testing if needed.

Insurance and financial‑assurance items were raised. Commissioners referenced other municipal examples: an Ithaca model requiring a $5,000,000 umbrella policy, pollution liability and 30 days’ written notice of cancellation. Staff said they would research standard insurance limits and bond language and noted the draft currently requires an estimate of removal cost but does not yet add a removal bond; commissioners requested bond language be added.

Commissioners discussed process issues tied to federal shot clocks and tolling. Staff noted the draft includes provisions for shot‑clock compliance and extension mechanisms; several commissioners cautioned that meeting federal time frames could be administratively taxing if every application is routed through multiple bodies (staff, Planning and Zoning, Town Council) and asked staff to watch timing carefully as the ordinance evolves.

Public comment during this agenda item included a resident who provided a lay explanation of the FCC “shot clocks”: "What the shot clocks do is define when an application is submitted to the town a timer starts... When an application goes in, towers up in 180 days and that's what those shot clocks define." (Lori Troller, resident). The commission also received suggestions to include balloon‑test requirements, an alternative‑site analysis for applicants and stronger language on RF-emission limits and preemption of certain federal standards.

No formal vote or recommendation was taken. Staff said they will continue revising the draft, incorporate commissioner input (definitions cleanup, independent testing and insurance/bond language, balloon tests, alternative-site analysis) and return for further discussion; commissioners suggested soliciting legal review by a wireless-specialist attorney before finalizing the ordinance.