Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts new rules for siting cell towers, emphasizes design and setbacks
Summary
Logan Council adopted Ordinance 24‑15 to change local code governing wireless telecommunication facilities: the update raises setbacks from houses and playgrounds, prioritizes co‑location and discrete designs, and steers taller facilities toward industrial zones while noting federal limits on health‑based regulation.
Logan City Council on Sept. 4 adopted Ordinance 24‑15, a code amendment that changes how the city reviews wireless telecommunication facilities. The amendment reframes local review around siting, design, setbacks and co‑location rather than health concerns, which staff said are preempted by federal law.
Russ, a city planning staff member, told the council: "The federal law actually prohibits local land use authorities to make decisions based on health concerns when it comes to cell towers." He said the amendment increases minimum setbacks from houses and public gathering areas (the proposed change raises the house setback from 150 to 200 feet), encourages co‑location and self‑design first, and incentivizes locating taller facilities in industrial or commercial zones.
Several public commenters supported better visual design and asked that towers be made to look natural while remaining identifiable and safe. One commenter suggested camouflaging designs that are still recognizable; Dr. Gail Yost expressed safety concerns: "If it looks like a tree of some kind, are they going to take some kind of rope or shoe or something and try to access it?" Staff responded that screening is intended for aesthetics and to keep people away from equipment and that towers are typically designed without accessible rungs at reachable heights.
Council members asked whether the city could categorically prohibit towers in parks; Russ said federal preemption and essential communication needs make an outright ban difficult, but the code can and does create incentives and conditional use requirements so facilities are sited away from sensitive public spaces where feasible.
Ordinance 24‑15 passed on a voice vote. Implementation will be handled by the planning department using the updated code standards and conditional permitting process; staff indicated future project applications will be subject to the revised setbacks and screening requirements.
