Arapahoe County commissioners direct staff to advance wireless-communication code update to public review

Ernie Rose, senior planner in Arapahoe County Public Works and Development, told commissioners during an afternoon study session that staff is seeking direction to advance a county-initiated code amendment that renames the current “commercial mobile radio service” (CMRS) section to “wireless communication facilities” (WCF) and reorganizes related rules.

The draft consolidates definitions, places routine replacement or modest equipment changes under the building-permit process, adds a formal abandonment and revocation provision, and revises the county land-use table to distinguish attached antennas, alternative tower structures, small-cell facilities and temporary towers. "The proposed amendment switches the title of our current code from commercial mobile radio services to wireless communication facilities," Rose said.

Why it matters: the update is intended to reflect current telecommunications technology and federal and state law, streamline administrative processing for minor equipment swaps, and require applicants to demonstrate why alternative locations are not feasible for new tower structures. Clarion, a consultant, prepared the draft update for county staff, and the county attorney’s office reviewed the document.

Key points discussed

- Scope and nomenclature: The draft replaces the CMRS label with WCF to cover a broader range of wireless technologies and moves definitions into the code section. It also creates specific categories in the land-use table for attached (roof or building), alternative tower structures (formerly freestanding antennas), temporary towers and small-cell facilities.

- Administrative processing: Staff said routine replacements or repairs that do not increase height or footprint will be handled through building permits rather than a full land-use review, a change intended to reduce unnecessary review for one-for-one equipment swaps.

- Alternative-site analysis: The draft tightens the requirement for applicants to explain why other sites are infeasible, adding more detail to the county’s existing requirement that other locations be considered.

- Right-of-way and small cells: Commissioners were reminded that Arapahoe County adopted a small-cell-in-right-of-way code in 2019; the current amendment focuses on private-property facilities.

- Shot clocks and pending state law: Staff and commissioners discussed federal and state timing requirements for land-use review. Rose and Jason Reynolds, planning division manager, summarized current local timelines: a 150-day timeframe for a brand-new tower (consistent with federal regulations), a 90-day clock for colocation that does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, and a 60-day clock for eligible-facility modifications. Commissioners and staff noted pending state legislation that would impose a 60-day shot clock for all applications; staff said that if the legislation passes before public hearings, the county can update the draft to reflect the new deadline.

Commissioner response and next steps

County staff asked the board whether to proceed to a Planning Commission study session for feedback, then open a public comment period and schedule hearings. Staff recommended approval to move the draft forward as presented. Commissioners signaled support to advance the draft: according to the transcript, five commissioners gave a thumbs-up to proceed. Staff said the next step is a Planning Commission study session, followed by a public comment period on the county website and formal hearings.

Votes at a glance

- Direction to advance county-initiated WCF code amendment to Planning Commission study session and public review: commissioners signaled support (five "thumbs up"). This was recorded as a board direction to proceed rather than a formal roll-call adoption.

- Motion to enter executive session for legal advice regarding Senate Bill 25-001 and recently issued presidential executive orders: moved by Commissioner Jeff Baker, seconded by Commissioner Jessica Campbell; motion approved by voice vote (all in favor).

What remains unclear or to-watch

Staff and commissioners flagged that state legislation under consideration could require adjustments to the draft’s timing provisions and that clarifications about non-discrimination language in state bills (preventing local preference against particular technologies) may warrant edits. The draft also leaves technical standards and specific design requirements to be refined in subsequent review steps.

The county will present the draft to the Planning Commission for a study session, accept public comments online, and return for hearings; staff said they will incorporate any statutory changes that occur while the draft is in the public-review process.