Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee backs zoning change to treat commercial cell towers as a permitted use
Summary
The Regulations Committee approved a zoning amendment to make commercial communication towers a universally permitted use with standardized development standards; council members acknowledged state law limits local discretion on tower siting and emphasized screening and buffering requirements.
Nathan Shaw, a planner with the Allen County Department of Planning Services, told the Regulations Committee the 2025 substantial amendment B would "permit commercial communication towers as a universally permitted use, which will eliminate the need for a special use approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals." He said the amendment adds uniform development standards for structure engineering, fencing, parking, property splits and access and proposed an effective date of April 8, 2026.
Councilman Scott Myers and other members pressed for clarity on local control. Jeff Paddock said the change reflects state law that limits local discretion and warned neighbors that "those folks who are concerned should contact state legislators." Paddock described the topic as a loss of local decisionmaking authority that had been removed in a prior legislative session.
Patrick Rue, deputy land use director, and other staff said the amendment does not alter the city’s authority over micro-cell facilities in the public right of way and that it only affects larger monopole-style towers. City staff said the amendment strengthens screening requirements at the base of these monopoles—requiring solid-board fencing, landscaping and buffering—and noted development standards remain enforceable; if an applicant seeks a variance from the development standards, that component would still go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
After discussion the committee recorded a due-pass recommendation; the clerk announced the committee vote as "7 members in favor, 1 against." The amendment was presented as conforming local standards to state statutory controls over tower siting rather than expanding siting authority at the local level. The committee noted public hearings before the Board of Zoning Appeals will still be possible when applicants seek variances from the new development standards.
Next steps: the amendment was recommended for passage and will appear on the council’s regular session agenda for final action. No additional public hearings were scheduled by the committee; council members urged residents with siting concerns to contact state representatives.
