Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton staff drafts updated wireless‑telecom rules; considers municipal‑property category and wider district options
Summary
Staff presented a draft wireless telecommunications ordinance that groups applications into three procedural categories (A, B, C), proposes adding new zoning districts where towers would be allowed as special land uses and flagged a possible Category D for towers on municipal property to support public safety and utilities.
Canton Township planning staff introduced a draft wireless‑telecommunications ordinance to update the township’s standards for towers and wireless communication facilities and align procedures with state law and contemporary technology.
Staff framed the ordinance around three categories: Category A (administrative filings and certain collocations required by state law), Category B (special land use for changes not eligible for administrative approval) and Category C (new towers or major changes requiring special‑land‑use review and public hearings). Patrick (Planning Department staff) said the structure reflects Michigan statutory requirements and local best practices; he noted the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act amendments affecting wireless facilities.
Why it matters: the current ordinance limits towers to industrial districts, leaving many developed and residential areas without nearby permitted options; wireless coverage needs have expanded with greater reliance on mobile networks and connected devices. Staff proposed expanding the list of districts where towers could be considered as special land uses (for example, rural agricultural, residential estate, rural residential, R‑1 and light industrial research districts) while keeping multifamily and dense residential districts exempt by default.
Municipal property option: staff proposed discussing a potential separate category (Category D) that would treat towers on municipal property differently — potentially permitting them with site‑plan review rather than special‑land‑use review — to facilitate locations for public‑safety, utility or municipal communications equipment.
Procedures and standards: the draft includes typical development standards (setbacks, height limits, landscaping, enclosures), compliance references to federal/state rules, maintenance and removal provisions for abandoned facilities, and a public‑hearing process for special land uses with 300‑foot notice. Staff said rooftop attachments currently exist in commercial districts and could remain an implementation option; the draft focused on ground‑mounted towers and colocation procedures required by statute.
Next steps: staff will continue work on small‑cell language in a related code section and expects additional meetings before scheduling a public hearing; the draft provides wireless firms and the public an opportunity to comment on district choices and development standards.
