Danville Town Council Agenda May 1, 2018

On 4/17/18, the Town of Danville discussed proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07, a proposed Zoning Text Amendment, repealing the existing Section 32-70 of the Danville Municipal Code related to the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. The following City Staff presented and responded to questions from the Town Council:

The following individuals expressed opposition to the ordinance, as proposed:

  • Sarah Reilly, Danville
  • David Holeman, Danville
  • Barbara Gaye, Danville
  • Brett Holbrook, Danville
  • Lou Plummer, Alamo, Danville
  • Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley
  • Carole Ryan, Alamo

The following individuals submitted speaker cards in opposition of the ordinance as proposed, but chose not to speak.:

  • Lisa Capriotti, Danville
  • John Stump, Danville
  • Laurie Wallis, Danville

The same item has been agendized for May 1, 2018, for an update, but no action.

Agend Item #7.2: Update on proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07, approving Zoning Text Amendment ZTA17-0002, repealing the existing Section 32-70 of the Danville Municipal Code related to the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance (C. DeCastro)

Since the April 17, 2018 meeting, the Town has contacted Telecom Law Firm ( which has previously worked with the Town on review of individual wireless applications) to act as a consultant to assist in answering the questions raised, and to help the Town complete a revised draft Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance for the Town Council’ s consideration. In consultation with Telecom Law Firm, the following information is provided in response to one of the questions raised:

Q: Can the Town Impose a Moratorium on the Installation of Wireless Facilities?

Danville Town Staff Answer

The Federal law does not prevent adoption of a moratorium. However, in 2014, the Federal Communication Commission ( FCC) adopted an order providing that a local moratorium does not stop the running of the "shot clock" imposed by the FCC on the review of all wireless applications. This means that any provider can file an application and the Town would still need to review and act on the application within the same time frame. Because adoption of a moratorium would serve no beneficial purpose and could create confusion for residents, Town staff strongly recommends not pursuing this option.

It is anticipated that the remaining list of questions will be scheduled for a future Town Council meeting for further discussion and action once sufficient research has been conducted to answer them comprehensively.

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the Town limit the number and/ or proximity of small cell site installations in residential neighborhoods or near schools? For example, can the ordinance include a development standard that requires a minimum setback for a small cell facility from a residence?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the Town limit the total number of small cell sites allowed to be installed on an annual basis?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the Town require the wireless providers provide the Town with a map showing the ultimate number and locations of all planned small cell facilities within the community, or at least neighborhood by neighborhood, prior to any initial approvals?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the Town require or prohibit collocations on existing sites for the small wireless sites?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the license agreements that the. Town must enter into with the wireless providers provide any additional basis for . the Town’ s regulation . of wireless communication facilities?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the Town create uniform design standards so that all small cell facilities look similar, and force the different service providers to design their equipment and antennas to meet these standards?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Can the ordinance use stronger language, such as " prohibit" versus " strongly encourage," wherever possible in order to make the ordinance’ s development standards more definitive?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Since relevant Federal and State laws regarding wireless communication facilities generally refer to cell sites and cellular service, do the laws expressly apply to all the services, such as video, and other data intensive services?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Is there any latitude on the way we can regulate the public right of way?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: Is there any latitude in requiring alternate small cell designs, such as additional facilities, but further away from residences, that would reduce the safety concerns?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Q: What are the options for neighborhoods with no above ground utility poles? Can service providers install their own poles to support a small cell facility? Is there any development standard that the Town can impose to limit the installation of new poles?

S4WT Answer

Coming . . .

Rest of agendized item:

Mr. Ewing addressed questions and comments made by the public. He responded to questions from the Town Council regarding right- of- way, state and federal laws, timelines and review of cell applications.

The Town Council questioned whether the Town can prohibit cell providers from erecting a pole where one does not currently exist; questioned whether the reference to cell sites in the law covers all scope of services; questioned if there is anything else the Town can do to regulate how the systems can expand in the Town; questioned potential health ramifications and whether or not the Town can use health studies to impact the ordinance; and, questioned whether all small cell sites can be required to co – locate.

The Town Council would like to see a map of all of the proposed small cell locations; expressed concern regarding neighborhood aesthetics; would like to limit the number of cell sites in Danville; would like to standardize the look of the small cell facilities; would like to see photos of small cell facilities; and, know if the Town has the right to limit the number of facilities and the locations that they are placed.

Mr. Crompton responded to questions regarding the location of poles and stated that maps have not been provided to the Town showing proposed locations.

The Town Council expressed interest in creating a moratorium on small cell sites until the Town can research the answers to questions raised during this public hearing, slow the process down, and understand who the service providers are and where they are proposing to place sites. Mr. Ewing stated that he will research the ability to impose a moratorium and determine if it would be in conflict with federal law. He added that the Town currently has a number of applications pending for small cell sites.