Brandon commission discusses rewriting telecom rules, seeks clearer standards for cell towers

Brandon planning staff and commissioners spent the bulk of a meeting reviewing draft language to regulate wireless telecommunications facilities, focusing on technical reviews, definitions and whether towers should follow standard building setbacks.

The conversation centered on two draft ordinances: one covering base stations and co‑located antennas and a second focused on institutional zoning. Patrick, a planning staff member, said the split was “because there is the state rule that an ordinance covers a single subject,” and that staff wanted to be “as compliant as we can be.”

Why it matters: the commission is considering where to allow new towers, how tall they may be and what evidence applicants must provide to show there is “no feasible alternative” site — questions that affect where companies such as Verizon can place equipment and how nearby residents and institutions (including a nearby school parcel and Oak Ridge Nursery) may be impacted.

Discussion highlights

- Third‑party review and methodology: Staff proposed allowing the city to hire an outside engineering firm, paid by the applicant, to evaluate RF propagation studies and other technical claims. Jonas Snyder, a representative speaking for the applicant, said RF propagation studies are industry standard but methodologies vary and that costs could be substantial if both the provider and the city commissioned separate studies. He suggested the city specify a methodology applicants must use so the city’s reviewer would only need to “review and confirm the information.”

- Testing for FCC compliance: Draft language on page 27 would require periodic testing or certifications to ensure equipment continues to meet Federal Communications Commission limits. Staff said they had seen similar language in other cities but had not yet verified whether the FCC permits a municipality to require ongoing testing; Patrick said, “I have not yet. This was just proposed based on what we saw other places.”

- Setbacks, footprints and site constraints: Participants discussed applying the zoning table’s graduated setback formula (which increases setback with height) to towers, or treating towers differently. Staff noted the Alliance site under discussion has a lease compound roughly 25 by 25 feet (surveyed lease area 30 by 50) for the fenced equipment area, and that some institutional lots are only about 60–65 feet wide — creating practical constraints if the full setback table applied. The draft currently lists setback examples: for 65–75 foot structures, a 40‑foot front yard setback, 25‑foot side setbacks and a 35‑foot rear setback were cited during discussion.

- Height and co‑location: The draft allows 100 feet for a single provider and up to 200 feet if built to serve multiple carriers, but staff pointed out a contradiction: the application requires a written willingness to allow co‑location even as a single‑provider cap is expressed elsewhere. Jonas said a typical target height to serve the area is about 100 feet, and towers are often built taller so other carriers can co‑locate without a new tower.

- Special zones and spot zoning: Commissioners debated whether to rezone the Alliance property to General Business (GB) instead of Institutional to avoid lot‑size minimums and restrictive setbacks. Staff warned rezoning a single lot can be legally sensitive unless it fits a broader plan; commissioners suggested rezoning city‑owned properties to Institutional later to avoid creating multiple nonconforming situations.

Direction and next steps

Commissioners signaled consensus on several points: clean up terminology and definitions (e.g., “telecommunication facility” vs. “base station” vs. “support structure”), reconcile contradictions about conditional uses, and avoid imposing on‑lot setbacks that would make proposed sites physically impossible. Patrick said he would take comments back to staff and produce a redraft; the group agreed to schedule a public hearing after required notice. Patrick estimated that, given public‑notice timelines, a vote on amended language would be possible “in April at the earliest.”

Quotes

"This is broken down into 2 ordinances just because there is the state rule that an ordinance covers a single subject," Patrick said, explaining why staff separated the draft.

Jonas Snyder, representing the applicant, described the technical study tradeoffs: "There's industry standards for that engineering firms that do that. Verizon, in this case, did one themselves ahead of building the site... If you wanted an independent third party to do it, it can certainly be done."

Near‑term timeline

Staff said state and local notice requirements mean a public hearing will require newspaper publication at least 10 days before the hearing; if language is ready and noticed promptly the earliest practical vote would be in April.

Ending

Staff will return with a revised draft that (1) clarifies definitions, (2) reconciles conditional‑use vs. permitted‑use inconsistencies, (3) sets a written methodology or submission standard for RF propagation studies, and (4) proposes a practical approach to setbacks and heights for urban sites. The commission did not adopt ordinance language at this meeting.