Brandon planning commission forwards three-part cell-tower ordinance to city council

The Brandon Planning Commission voted to forward a three-part set of amendments to the city—s cell-tower regulations to the City Council for public hearings on April 7.

The package would (1) authorize limited third-party technical review paid by the applicant for narrow cases where a provider must demonstrate no feasible alternative or a significant coverage gap; (2) change the default setback for new tower facilities from a flat 300 feet from residentially zoned or used property to a distance equal to 1.1 times the tower—s height measured from the base; and (3) add or clarify conditional-use rules and lot-and-yard entries in multiple zoning districts so towers are explicitly listed and regulated there.

Commission members discussed the provisions and possible edits before voting. Patrick, a member of city planning staff, said the third-party-review language is meant for the small number of applications that seek an exception beyond the ordinance—s standards and that city staff can remove those sections now and return with refined definitions later if the commission preferred. "If you are uncomfortable with this language, we can always strike sections 1, 2, and 3," Patrick said.

Commissioners expressed concern that the third-party reviews could create an unpredictable cost to applicants. One commissioner said, "Is it a thousand dollars? Is it $10,000? I have no idea what a third-party expert cost would be for them to prepare a report." Patrick and other staff members said the city typically obtains a cost estimate first and discusses options with the applicant before the city contracts for reviews.

Craig Snyder, who identified himself as standing in for Jonah and said he had 30 to 35 years of experience in the tower industry, told the commission he had not encountered the kind of forced "prove the need" dispute that would trigger a costly third-party study in his career. "In all my years, I haven't ever had to trigger that kind of a clause," Snyder said. "We've always been able to work with the city, find a suitable place." He added he could not estimate what a study would cost.

The commission also addressed how towers would be treated in specific zoning tables. For the General Business district amendment, commissioners agreed to add explicit minimum lot width and yard setbacks (proposed in the meeting as a 25-foot front yard, 7-foot side yard and a 5-foot rear yard) and to maintain a separate note numbering after the change. For the institutional district amendment, commissioners debated whether to keep minimum lot-area requirements and whether to allow towers on public parks. Several members favored an exemption protecting neighborhood parks under a threshold (commissioners discussed 5 acres as a cutoff) so neighborhood parks could not be used for towers without further city action. One commissioner summarized: "I kinda think if you just said to protect the neighborhood parks under 5 acres ... that would give some credence to us when people start having concerns."

After discussion, the commission voted to forward the three-part package, with the changes discussed, to the City Council. A commission member moved to present the amendments to council; another member seconded; the motion carried.

The forwarded draft will go to the City Council for public hearings on April 7. Staff told the commission it will continue to refine definitional language and can remove or rework the third-party-review sections if the commission prefers to revisit them before council.