Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood proposes new tier for cell‑site approvals to fill service gaps in east and southeast neighborhoods
Summary
City staff introduced an ordinance to add a 'tier 4' for personal wireless service facilities that would allow taller, needs‑based towers in underserved parts of Brentwood, require propagation studies and third‑party technical review, and emphasize co‑location and disguising of structures. Commissioners said the planning commission will review design and siting details.
Brentwood leaders on a recent briefing agenda moved forward with a draft ordinance designed to ease rules that officials say have kept wireless carriers from filling spotty service in the city’s east and southeast neighborhoods.
The proposal would create a new ‘‘tier 4’’ under chapter 78’s technical standards that allows carriers to submit a propagation study demonstrating insufficient or no service and, based on that study, seek a site with a maximum height up to 160 feet if engineering shows it is necessary. The ordinance emphasizes co‑location to minimize proliferation of separate towers, requires third‑party technical review of applications and a 1,000‑foot notice area for nearby residents.
“We have many areas in our community…that have significant gaps that either have very poor service or no service,” the Chair said while introducing the item, arguing the ordinance is intended to be a targeted, needs‑based change rather than an unfettered expansion of towers. The draft also directs applicants to propose camouflage strategies and gives the planning commission discretion to work with applicants on disguising designs.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly framed the change as technical and procedural, not a policy to put towers where they are not needed. “You look at the engineering first and say, where does it need to go from an engineering standpoint,” a commissioner said, noting public requests — such as requests to put towers in visually unobtrusive spots — cannot override engineering requirements. Another commissioner cautioned that camouflage choices must still ‘‘fit’’ the surroundings and said the ordinance includes language intended to prevent inappropriate disguises, such as a 160‑foot palm tree in a pine stand.
Staff said the timeline for review follows the normal course: a first reading before the commission, planning‑commission review, a public hearing and a second/final reading, and warned that federal ‘‘shot clock’’ timelines limit how long a local review can delay an application. Officials said carriers would be expected to secure site agreements (lease or purchase) with property owners in advance of formal applications and that private land under most circumstances would remain the responsibility of the property owner and applicant, with the city prioritizing government or quasi‑government sites for siting when feasible.
Michael Sandifer, a technical consultant with the firm presented at the briefing, was introduced to answer detailed technical questions during later reviews.
What’s next: Staff said the commission would take a first reading on the docketed schedule; the planning commission is set to review the ordinance and examine camouflage and co‑location measures before it returns to the commission for a public hearing and final vote.
