Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission recommends denial of 80-foot wireless facility in Village Center after heated debate
Summary
Following staff’s recommendation to deny an 80-foot "stealth" wireless facility at N89 W16785 Appleton Avenue, the Plan Commission voted to recommend denial to the Village Board after applicant testimony about coverage, FirstNet obligations and legal counsel’s argument on state statute limits on denial; the item moves to the Village Board public hearing July 6 with ACB review on June 23.
The Menomonee Falls Plan Commission on June 2 recommended denial of a conditional-use permit for an 80-foot wireless communications facility proposed at N89 W16785 Appleton Avenue, citing conflicts with the Village Center Overlay’s design standards and concerns about visual impacts to the historic downtown area.
Staff’s written report (and staff presentation at the meeting) listed nine reasons for recommending denial, including that the proposed structure did not meet the Village Center Overlay’s design and scale standards, lacked adequate screening in the materials before the commission (a revised landscape plan was submitted the morning of the meeting and forwarded to review bodies), and would exceed the typical building heights in the adjacent historic district. Planner Amy Bennett recommended denial as a recommendation to the Village Board; the ACB will review the applicant’s revised materials on June 23 and the Village Board public hearing is scheduled for July 6.
Applicant Derek McGrew, representing AT&T, described the revised proposal (an 80-foot stealth building-style structure rather than a taller monopole) and emphasized network capacity and public-safety reasons for the site: AT&T is the contractor for FirstNet (the nationwide public-safety broadband network), and the company’s RF engineers submitted sworn statements claiming a service and capacity need in the downtown search ring. McGrew said rooftop and small-cell alternatives were infeasible for this coverage/capacity need and that Verizon has also expressed interest in colocating on the site.
AT&T’s attorney Rod Carter of Husch Blackwell argued that Wisconsin statute (cited in the hearing) restricts local authority to deny applications solely on aesthetic grounds, prohibits certain height-based prohibitions and forbids using an overlay’s design preferences in a way that effectively prohibits towers in defined areas; he urged the commission to weigh legal limits on aesthetic denials and noted courts require substantial evidentiary support for aesthetic-based denials.
Commission debate was vigorous: some members and neighbors said the structure would be visually dominant and inconsistent with the village’s historic character; others acknowledged downtown coverage and capacity constraints during events and supported seeking alternatives or different tower designs (monopole or rooftop placements). Several commissioners noted additional review by municipal counsel and ACB would occur; with a motion on the table the Plan Commission voted to recommend denial to the Village Board and the matter will proceed to a public hearing on July 6.
