Commission begins rewrite of wireless communications rules, asks staff to return with Campanelli draft elements

The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21 resumed a multi-meeting review of Chapter 17, the town’s code on wireless communication towers and antennas, and directed staff to bring back a consolidated draft for the May meeting that draws from attorney Michael Campanelli’s model ordinance while addressing local issues such as setbacks, stealth or camouflage design, and equipment vaulting.

Why it matters: Changes to Chapter 17 could affect where towers and poles may be sited, the required separation from residences, whether equipment must be placed underground, and the process for public review. Those rules interact with Chapter 16 (right-of-way and small-cell deployments), which commissioners said should be reviewed in tandem to avoid unintended outcomes.

Staff briefing and commission direction

A planning staff member reviewed prior council direction to examine the current ordinance and the Campanelli draft. Staff outlined topics where commissioners had asked for additional detail: stealth/camouflage technology; noise limits and generator sound mitigation; vaults or underground equipment; separation and setback distances from residential uses; colocation expectations and power/fiber; and application procedures distinguishing administrative from public-review proposals.

Commissioners asked staff to return with a draft that more closely incorporates Campanelli’s recommended language while reconciling procedural differences with the town’s existing code. Several commissioners emphasized that Chapter 16 (right-of-way small-cell rules) and Chapter 17 (parcel-based towers) should be considered together because stricter rules for parcel-based towers could drive providers to deploy more small cells in the public right-of-way.

Separation, fall-zone and effective-prohibition concerns

Commission discussion focused on setbacks from residential uses and the risk of effectively prohibiting service if separation distances are set too large. Staff said the previously discussed option would require an SUP for all towers and prohibit towers within 300 feet of residential uses, with the commission’s direction that no exception be permitted below a 300-foot threshold. Commissioners questioned whether that standard would leave few viable sites and asked staff to produce maps showing where a 300-foot separation (and other alternatives) would leave available space.

Operational details discussed

Commissioners and commenters raised other specific topics for the draft ordinance: - Require undergrounding of power and fiber to cabinets if feasible and consider vaulting of equipment. - Institute RF testing requirements beyond post-construction testing, including consideration of random or annual testing and stronger documentation of claimed “gap” service evidence (for example, drop-call records or independent drive tests). - Strengthen provisions for stealth/camouflage design and dark-sky compliance and add clear building-code and structural review standards. - Consider security, maintenance bonds and indemnification language tied to tower installations.

Public comments

Several members of the public spoke in favor of a stronger ordinance. Larry Myers urged the commission to adopt rules that would support a broader innovation strategy and attract employers. Laurie Treller, who has worked on telecom ordinance issues, told commissioners the Campanelli draft was intentionally written to survive litigation and recommended using that draft as the foundation. Gene Schlachta urged broad resident outreach and warned against relaxing sign and aesthetic controls while changes are considered.

Next steps

Staff said it will bring a consolidated draft that incorporates the Campanelli model language where appropriate and reconciles it with the town’s procedural code for the commission’s May meeting; commissioners requested maps and technical analysis showing how different separation distances would affect available tower locations. No formal vote was taken on the substance of the ordinance; the commission provided direction to staff and scheduled further review.