Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates new cell-tower rules, asks staff for maps of setback options
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of the meeting weighing how to measure setbacks for proposed wireless towers — property line, existing habitable structures, or a ratio tied to tower height — and asked staff to map multiple radius options before drafting a final ordinance.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 5 spent more than an hour debating how the city should regulate freestanding wireless towers, with commissioners weighing fixed distances, structure-based setbacks and ratios tied to tower height and directing staff to produce maps showing several candidate buffer radii.
Jonas Snyder, a representative for the wireless applicant, told the commission Brandon currently relies on a single tower and a water-tower lease that Verizon may not renew, and said carriers have been unable to find sites on the south side of town under the city’s current rules. "Brandon is currently fairly significantly trailing behind other similar sized communities around here in South Dakota from a wireless bandwidth standpoint," Snyder said, arguing the code should allow some flexibility for future expansion.
Commissioners debated three measurement approaches: setbacks measured to the property line, setbacks measured to the nearest existing habitable structure or building setback line, and ratio-based setbacks (for example 1.1× or 1.5× the tower height). Unidentified Speaker (S5) argued the setback "should be from the property line and not from an adjacent habitable structure," citing long-term property rights; other commissioners favored measures tied to actual structures or a hybrid rule that sets a minimum fixed distance and a percentage of tower height.
Technical specifics were part of the discussion. Snyder corrected his earlier reference and said the proposed freestanding tower would be 120 feet tall. Commissioners and staff mentioned standards used elsewhere — for example a 1.1× height rule and a Watertown-style hybrid (a minimum fixed distance or a percentage of tower height, whichever is greater). Participants suggested candidate values including 100–300 foot fixed radii and multipliers such as 1.1×, 1.5× or 3× the tower height.
Members raised concerns about permitting towers in institutional zones such as parks and schools. Unidentified Speaker (S4) said small neighborhood parks are often surrounded by residences and could be undesirable tower locations if the ordinance is too permissive. The commission also discussed the option of allowing a tower in proximity to another parcel only with written consent from that adjacent property owner and questioned how that consent would hold up if ownership changed.
Commissioners did not vote on an ordinance. Instead, they instructed staff to prepare a visual map that overlays several setback options (e.g., 1.1× height, 1.5× height, 200 feet, 300 feet) so the commission can see which locations in town would remain viable for tower siting. Staff also suggested talking with the local school district about possible rezoning of some school property to "institutional," which would affect measurement rules for nearby towers. The commission directed staff to return with these analyses at a future meeting and noted that any ordinance change would require public notice and hearings before final adoption.
