Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brandon planners weigh tower setback options and ask staff for maps to guide ordinance drafting
Summary
Commissioners discussed draft wireless facility regulations including setbacks measured from residential zoning or habitable structures, monopole preference, waivers, and possible conditional-use limits for parks; they asked staff to produce maps showing buffer radii to test how restrictive various distances would be.
The Brandon Planning and Zoning Commission spent more than an hour discussing draft wireless facility standards after receiving background materials and examples from other cities. Commissioners debated how to measure separation between towers and residential areas, whether to permit towers in certain zones, and what review path to require when setbacks cannot be met.
Jonas Snyder, a telecommunications representative who addressed the commission, said Brandon currently has limited wireless infrastructure compared with nearby communities and that carriers have sought a south-side tower for several years. He urged the city to adopt code language that allows future expansion to improve connectivity. Staff and commissioners reviewed example provisions from Sioux Falls, Watertown, Gretna and other municipalities, and discussed technical choices including monopole towers versus lattice or guyed designs.
Key policy options discussed included measuring setbacks from the property line versus from the nearest habitable structure; using a multiple of tower height (for example 1.1× or 1.5× the height) versus a fixed minimum distance (for example 150–300 feet); or combining both approaches (minimum feet or percentage of tower height, whichever is greater). Commissioners expressed particular concern about towers near schools and small neighborhood parks that are surrounded by homes. Several commissioners favored a stricter buffer for existing residential properties than for future developments.
Commissioners also discussed permitting towers in different zones (commercial, industrial, institutional) and the risk that a broad “institutional” allowance could permit towers in smaller neighborhood parks. Staff noted towers mounted on existing buildings (rooftop equipment) are functionally different from freestanding monopoles and may require separate rules.
After debate, commissioners asked staff to draft ordinance options and maps that show how different buffer distances would affect available sites in town. Staff agreed to produce visualizations with multiple radii (commissioners suggested 50-, 200- and 300-foot buffers and one or more percentage-based buffers) so the commission can evaluate whether a chosen standard would effectively prohibit wireless deployment in parts of town.
The commission did not adopt final rules at this meeting; instead it provided direction to staff to prepare draft language, to investigate potential sites such as city parks, and to produce buffer maps for the next meeting.
