Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broomfield moves to align wireless permitting with state shot clocks; council keeps final say for public‑hearing applications
Summary
Staff proposed code changes to adopt 90‑day colocation and 150‑day new‑facility review timelines required by state law; council approved proceeding with a draft that substantially complies with HB25‑1056 and directed that council, not only the Land Use Review Commission, be the final decision maker for new facilities requiring a public hearing.
Broomfield staff recommended changes to Chapter 17.35 of the municipal code to bring the city into substantial compliance with a recent state law that establishes statutory review timelines for wireless facility permits.
Cameron Ennis, principal planner, briefed the council on HB25‑1056, which sets a 90‑day shot clock for colocation/existing‑structure wireless applications and a 150‑day clock for new facilities. The law allows local governments to pause the clock if an application is incomplete and permits mutual extensions by written agreement; if the time limit expires without an agreement or action, the law as written would deem the application approved.
Council asked pointed questions about the risk that applicants could submit incomplete files and wait out the clock to obtain automatic approval. Staff and the city attorney said the code can provide a short initial completeness review period, use pause provisions for insufficiency, and seek mutual extensions; they also said injunctions or other legal remedies exist if construction begins without proper permits. The city attorney cautioned that the statute represents an intrusion on local control and urged careful drafting that preserves local procedures where feasible.
Given the 150‑day limit for new facilities, council directed staff to proceed with a draft ordinance substantially complying with the state timing requirements and to make council the final decision‑making authority for applications requiring a public hearing (rather than LURC alone). Staff will prepare a draft ordinance for an April first reading and noted that including a call‑up provision or multiple hearings could make it difficult to meet the statutory timeline.
