Planning commission reviews draft wireless-communications ordinance, considers allowing towers on Canton Township property

Canton Township planning staff outlined proposed changes to the township zoning ordinance at a planning commission work session on Aug. 18, presenting language that would broaden where wireless communications facilities may be sited and permit certain towers and small‑cell equipment on township-owned property under board-approved agreements.

Patrick, the township community planner, said the draft would update Section 6.02 to include more robust standards and to allow towers on township land as a permitted use subject to board approval and a host agreement. “We’ve included some language that allows for towers and communication facilities on Canton Township owned property to be permitted uses,” Patrick said, while stressing the text is still a draft and will be reviewed by legal counsel before any public hearing.

The draft sets a 199-foot maximum tower height to avoid mandatory Federal Aviation Administration lighting that begins at 200 feet, and it contemplates state small-cell rules that allow small cells in rights-of-way up to 40 feet. Consultants and commissioners also discussed so-called mid‑cells—structures roughly 50–55 feet tall—that carriers have proposed for some public spaces. Doug, a consultant advising the township, described the practical differences: small cells serve smaller, denser areas and are costly to deploy widely; macro towers cover larger areas but can be more economical at scale.

Commissioners identified coverage gaps in the southwest township—notably Cherry Hill Village—and at high‑use public sites such as Heritage Park and Liberty Fest, where events can overwhelm existing capacity. Staff said carriers have expressed interest in several township properties and that allowing carefully chosen public‑property sites could reduce the total number of towers by enabling more strategic placement and negotiated screening or shared public‑safety uses.

Panelists discussed aesthetics and ‘‘stealth’’ options (for example, poles designed to blend with streetscapes or disguised towers) and warned that disguises can add weight and cost. Patrick said that even if township-hosted sites were permitted uses, applications would still require site-plan review by the planning commission and board; special‑land‑use applications on private property would continue to trigger the state‑mandated 300‑foot notice to nearby property owners.

Staff outlined next steps: ask carriers for propagation maps and specific site suggestions, prepare a map of township‑owned parcels as a supplemental resource, refine small‑cell language and cross‑references to the township’s police‑power ordinances, and return with revised draft text and further analysis. Patrick said the ordinance is not yet ready for a public hearing and that additional meetings and legal review are expected.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the meeting agenda by voice vote earlier in the session. No formal zoning actions or hearings were taken on Aug. 18; staff said a public hearing will be scheduled only after the draft is finalized and legally reviewed.

The planning commission is scheduled to revisit the ordinance at a future work session once staff and legal counsel complete the revisions and gather carrier technical materials.