Draft cell-tower ordinance moves to Planning & Zoning after county accepts outside attorney offer

Commissioner Matari introduced a draft wireless-communications ordinance at the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners' Jan. 13 meeting that would add a new article to the county land use and development code, tighten siting in residential zones, require carriers to submit technical data, and allow independent technical and legal review paid by the carrier.

Matari said the draft creates a hierarchy of facility types based on newer technologies and sets minimum parcel-size thresholds for certain facilities. "It updates and modernizes the ... ordinance provisions, does make it tougher to locate a wireless communication facility within the unincorporated county but not impossible," Matari said. The draft also excludes small private satellite dishes and ham radio facilities; Matari noted ham radio is an integral part of emergency management operations.

Commissioner Eberline asked for clearer definitions of "public safety" and whether the draft's exemptions could be too broad. Matari reviewed existing land-use definitions and agreed to add or amend a definition so that "public safety facility" explicitly refers to county or similar entities (fire protection districts, ambulance districts, emergency medical services, law enforcement, emergency communications and emergency management). Matari also flagged the need to ensure the ordinance's application-processing timelines comply with state and federal "shot clock" provisions.

The draft includes provisions for enforcement and for removing abandoned towers, and it allows for independent technical and legal review paid by the carrier to verify compliance after installation. Matari said the board had asked for the ability to measure radiation post-installation "to confirm that they meet federal standards."

A community group, Stop Smart Cities, offered to pay an outside attorney, Andrew Campanelli, to prepare or review ordinance language. Commissioners agreed the group's attorney could draft language at the group's expense but that any draft must go to Planning and Zoning for vetting before returning to the board. The board and staff emphasized that the county would not be the group's client and that correspondence should make the lack of county obligation explicit.

A public commenter representing Stop Smart Cities urged the board to accept Campanelli's services, saying his Dalton Gardens ordinance "was written 5 years ago. He's never had one of his ordinances challenged in court." Commissioners thanked the commenter and reiterated steps: Planning & Zoning review, written direction to the group clarifying no obligation, and later board consideration of any Planning & Zoning changes.

The ordinance remains a draft; Planning & Zoning review and any subsequent public hearings will determine whether and when the board considers adoption.