Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission weighs stricter cell‑tower zoning, radiation testing and collocation rules
Summary
At its May 21 meeting, the Northumberland County Planning Commission reviewed a draft telecommunications (cell‑tower) zoning ordinance, debating antenna specifications, a severability clause, five‑year radiation testing, collocation limits and a required visual demonstration; the commission postponed final action pending county‑attorney review and follow‑up on FCC permit materials.
On May 21, 2026, the Northumberland County Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing a draft telecommunications (cell‑tower) zoning ordinance compiled by Commissioner John Kost and staff, debating how prescriptive the county should be about antenna specifications, radiation testing and site demonstrations.
County Planner Stuart McKenzie opened the work session by saying staff had compared Richmond, Lancaster and Westmoreland counties’ ordinances and that some draft provisions “appear too specific” for local regulation. Commissioner Patrick O’Brien criticized parts of the draft as unnecessarily cumbersome, saying it read “less an ordinance and more of a Microsoft Software Agreement,” and called the mandatory arbitration language “somewhat overkill.”
Why it matters: The commission’s choices will affect how readily wireless carriers can build towers in Northumberland County, how the county protects views and neighboring properties, and what technical or monitoring requirements it can legally enforce given federal regulation.
Commission debate centered on several key points. Members disagreed about a proposed severability clause (language to allow a court to strike unlawful parts of the ordinance while leaving the rest in force); some commissioners favored keeping it as a legal safeguard, while others worried it would be inconsistent with existing county ordinances. Staff said the county attorney will review the draft before it is advertised for public hearing.
The commission also discussed a draft requirement for five‑year Non‑Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) testing and reporting. Several members recalled residents’ radiation concerns during the recent Callao conditional‑use process; Planner McKenzie noted that the county attorney advised that radiation levels are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and generally cannot be used as a permitting criterion. Commissioners were divided on whether to retain the five‑year testing obligation, weighing resident reassurance against potential preemption and added cost to developers.
On technical specifications, the draft borrowed differing approaches from other counties: the document delegates a priority to using existing structures (silos, water towers) and collocation on existing towers before permitting new construction, and it set different antenna caps by tower type (supported towers up to five antennas; monopole towers up to three). Commissioners noted that requiring collocation reduces the number of towers county‑wide and can be in the public interest, but they questioned whether the county should set strict antenna‑count limits or leave that to engineering judgment.
The draft also included a visual‑impact procedure that drew support: applicants would be required to coordinate with the Board of Supervisors on a demonstration date and to fly a minimum four‑foot diameter balloon at the proposed tower height so residents can visualize its top. Commissioners supported retaining that in the ordinance to ensure transparent community review.
Commissioners identified several items for staff and the commission to follow up on before further action: provide the commission and county attorney with copies of the FCC permit materials for the Callao application to identify any gaps in information; confirm which technical data are already supplied to the FCC; and have the county attorney review the entire draft ordinance, including severability and any provisions that could conflict with state or federal law. Commissioner Patrick O’Brien said he would research case law about owner‑tied conditions on conditional‑use permits and bring findings to the next meeting.
The commission did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; members agreed to continue the review next month after the attorney’s review and the requested follow‑up materials are provided.
Quotes: Commissioner Patrick O’Brien: “less an ordinance and more of a Microsoft Software Agreement,” and cautioned that overly prescriptive terms could discourage investment. Resident Ms. Campbell (public comment): she said she lives “about 500 feet” from a newly approved Callao tower and urged the commission to require radiation review; she initially said three miles, then revised her preference to “one mile.”
Next steps: staff will compile FCC permit materials and related documentation, the county attorney will review the draft ordinance, and the Planning Commission will resume the ordinance review at its next regular meeting.
