Commission begins review of CDO text changes; debate focuses on concealment and limits for wireless towers

Staff introduced a multi-page County Development Ordinance (CDO) amendment package largely driven by recent state-law changes and outlined several staff-led additions. The commission focused discussion on wireless communication facilities after staff said recent state law removes the county’s ability to regulate tower height for siting decisions. Staff proposed treating appearance as a regulatory tool: requiring towers to be concealed in rural residential, residential, and airport districts and allowing non-concealed towers in industrial or business zones.

“One of the biggest changes that the state law put into effect was that we are no longer allowed to regulate height,” staff said while explaining the rationale for using concealment standards instead. Commissioners debated whether concealed structures (flagpoles, faux trees, building-mounted monopoles) make sense in open rural areas, raised public-safety questions about fall zones and whether the county could adopt proximity requirements to occupied structures instead of a strict height limit. Staff said the county still can request simulations, colocation justifications, fall-zone calculations and sight-line diagrams but that recent code changes restrict asking for proprietary network-coverage or traffic data. The commission asked staff and legal to refine language and indicated the amendments will proceed through additional hearings.