Cities and counties are receiving more applications for small cell tower permits on city utility poles, schools and churches as industry is pushing to expand deployment of small cell antennas for 4G, 5G and the Internet of Things. With the passage of the FCC Ruling to speed deployment in 2018, local governments are responding by reviewing their wireless siting procedures and amending  and rewriting cell tower ordinances and codes in order to  maintain some measure of control in the placement of cell towers in addition to maintaining equitable revenue from cell tower installations.  A compilation of Model Cell Tower Ordinance is Key Elements of Strong Local Ordinances Physicians for Safe Technology. Another model ordinance with valuable provisions from ART is Model City Wireless Ordinance.  An attorney should always be consulted in writing the ordinance.

To fight back citizens are arming themselves with knowledge about cell towers, property values, 5G, health and environmental issues related to telecommunications, the law as well as options to rewrite local wireless facilities ordinances. They are sharing this with local government officials as well as crowding city hall. Cell Towers Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, their extensive resources utilized on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information.  

In addition, Americans For Responsible Technology has created a Sample Small Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several- although not all- of these issues. Please download their model ordinance and utilize their extensive resources at this link. 

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, for their extensive resources utilized on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information.  

In addition, 5G Crisis has created a Sample Small Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several, but not all, of these issues. Please download their model ordinance and utilize their extensive resources at this link. 

As well, a very good document to use as a guide for city officials entitled "Key Elements of a Strong Local Ordinance" , which is also located below.

1000 feet setback for small cells.

Proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07: Wireless Communication Facilities

• Aesthetic requirements (design guidelines may be developed and amended from time to time to clarify aesthetic and public safety goals and standards)
• Utilities must be underground to extent feasible. “Meters, panels, disconnect switches and other associated improvements must be placed in inconspicuous locations to the extent possible”.
• Permits valid for initial period of 10 years max
• “Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right-of-way.”
• Would allow small cells in residential districts:

–“All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures so as not to create substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impacts. “

–Property owners within 300 ft of proposed site must be notified

Danville, California: Ordinance No. 2018-07 Wireless Communications Facilities PDF

http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html

http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/

• Urgency Ordinance
• 5G opponents cite health concerns in urging city to limit wireless antennas

Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network

Ordinance No.819 An Urgency Ordinance Enacting Title 20 (“Telecommunications”) of the Fairfax Municipal Code to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities [small cell devices a.k.a. 5G]

• Redlined version 
• News: Marin Independent Journal  Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G

• installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods is prohibited
• 500 foot setbacks for small cells  for multi-family residences in commercial districts
• 500 ft separation from schools
• 1500 ft separation between nodes
• Los Altos Urgency Ordinance: 
• Los Altos Citing Guidelines:

Draft as of June 21, 2019  Marin drafts preferences for 5G rollout, Point Reyes Light

• “Marin’s draft rules select industrial, commercial or agricultural sites, or sites near public facilities, as preferred locations for the antennas; residential and mixed-use sites and areas within 1,500 feet of schools and daycare centers are the least-preferred locations.The draft favors placing antennas on existing street poles or traffic lights, versus new poles or small cell facilities. It limits antennas to one per pole and stipulates they must be at least 1,000 feet apart. It also includes aesthetic requirements that aim to blend equipment, and prohibits equipment on historic buildings.”

Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018

• New or updated facilities prohibited in residential zones. Commercial only.
• Facilities installed on poles in public right of way must be 1,500 feet apart
• Design, noise standards
• Facilities in public right of way that would interfere with future projects / improvements must be relocated
• Promptly remove facilities when no longer needed; replace with smaller facilities as feasible
• Defend and indemnify the City
• Mill Valley, California: Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018
• Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns 
• Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community 

City Council voted unanimously to approve a Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff had proposed. Council also voted unanimously in favor of a motion to direct City Staff “to come back as soon as possible but [in] no more than [one year], with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers”  (and e summarizing):

1. Disfavoring the placement of cell towers in, for example, residential zones and near schools;
2. Minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools, and minimum distances between cell towers;
3. Creating a list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites for macro cell towers (i.e., as an alternative to small cell node cell towers next to people’s homes);

Council also voted to direct City Staff to return to Council with a recommendation for “best practices” with respect to inspecting antennas.

“Seeking to strike a balance between federal requirements and resident concerns, Palo Alto approved on Monday night new rules for reviewing the flurry of applications that the city has been receiving from telecommunication companies seeking to install antennas on local streetlights and utility poles.

By a 6-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Tanaka absent, the council adopted a set of “objective standards” for wireless communication facilities, including a menu of preferred design alternatives for radio equipment and antennas. And in a nod to the dozens of residents who have raised alarms about the proliferation of cellular facilities on their blocks, the council launched a new effort to further restrict where such technology can be installed and to explore “minimum distance” requirements for wireless equipment in relation to local schools and homes.”

Palo Alto looks to distance cell antennas from homes, schools

According to citizens of the city, after citizen uproar, Crown Castle began complying with municipal aesthetic requirements and moving proposed locations out of neighborhoods and away from homes.  The ordinance has four key components, if these are met the site will almost certainly be approved:

• Minimal antenna size with screening
• All accessory equipment underground (everything except the antenna)
• Combining sites with existing vertical infrastructure (streetlights, traffic signals, etc.)
• Strict location restrictions, no sites on local, residential streets without an exception granted
  
  If they don’t comply with these, then the applicant must demonstrate the site is required to fill a significant gap and there is no less intrusive alternative to receive an exception.  This is not simply checking a box (i.e. the applicant just claiming these conditions exist) but has to be demonstrated to the City planning commission via engineering analysis.

Palos Verdes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma

• Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects
• Protect visual character; don’t create visual blight
• Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects
• Commercial or industrial zones
• Antennas must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight.
• Servicing wires must be installed within the width of the existing utility.
• All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole.
• Dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
• 1,500 feet minimum between each Small Cell facility.
• No Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
• An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way.
• Petaluma, California: Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma PDF

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

• Modeled after Mill Valley’s
• Adopted regulations prohibit facilities in residential and downtown zoning district.
• Facilities proposed in the public right-of-way subject to separate design criteria.
• Limits height and width of facilities to a minimum necessary for property function.
• Maximum height of 24 feet above the height of the existing utility pole and 7 feet above a street light standard.
• Requires equipment to be placed underground.

Ross Valley, California: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities PDF

Council Policy

• People within 300 feet of proposed antenna will be notified 
• Town is entitled to employ independent consultant at applicant’s expense to evaluate exceptions
• San Anselmo, California PDF

500 feet setback 

Draft ordinance (5-31-2019) for small cell antenna sites in San Diego County has the following requirement:

“SCWs shall not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, or churches. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall be a straight line measured from the closest property lines.”

San Diego County Ordinance

Negotiated agreement

“officials made improved access to areas with low internet participation a precondition for reducing fees…agreement set tiered costs per network node installation, with lower fees for companies deploying more nodes. Along with this incentive, three companies pledged to contribute a total of $24 million over the next decade to a digital inclusion fund.” (GovTech)

• News Stories The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control

City Council Report

Dec. 5, 2018 front page news story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/04/san-rafael-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/

Dec. 18, 2018  front page story:  https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/18/san-rafael-adopts-urgency-ordinance-to-keep-grip-on-5g-proliferation/

• City Staff Report: URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 (ZONING) AND ACCOMPANYING POLICY RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
• San Rafael, California:  December 2018 Documentation for City Action on 12/18/2018

“I want the city and county government to clearly say no to the FCC,” said resident Arthur Saftlas. “No 5G installations of any kind in Marin, until it can be proven safe for us and the environment.”- San Rafael, Calif., Officials Work to Tighten 5G Regulation

• San Rafael Residents Take  Pre-emptive Strike Against 5G 

City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance  (Recommended)

• Purpose: Institute a moratorium on applications for small cells in the public right-of-way until adoption of a permanent ordinance

Previous regulations on telecommunications facilities (according to the recommended urgency ordinance, these did not anticipate 5G and do not address installation of telecommunications facilities in the right-of-way):

• Purpose: Protect visual character, inhabitants, environmental resources

Cannot be located in any required yard setback area

• Facilities within 400 feet of residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals etc must comply with NIER standards
• Minor facilities must be 75 feet away from a “residential dwelling unit” except 1 single family residence on the property where it is located

Sebastopol, California: City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Small Cells in the Public Right of Way

Other Links

• http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/
• http://mystreetmychoice.com/sebastopol.html

Report and Urgency Ordinance

On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance.

500 ft setback and residents notified.

“Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared.”

• The City also has a  Small Cell Tower page.
• Sonoma California Ordinance on 5G

500 ft setback  and all facilities permitted pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the ADA. 

• “Telecommunication towers and antennas shall not be located within 1,500 feet of any school (nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school), trail, park or outdoor recreation area, sporting venues, and residential zones.”
• Screenshot of Ordinance from Walnut Website,
• To see the code online  go to https://qcode.us/codes/walnut/, Click on “Title 6: Planning and Zoning” Click on “Chapter 6.88 ANTENNAS AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES”, Click on “6.88.060 Design standards, See Item “O.

500 feet setback 

Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Towers and City Ordinances (mdsafetech.org) 

Combination of ordinances passed and suggested. Please consult an attorney for questions.

• FCC Clause: Have a clause voiding the agreement  or requiring it modification in the event of a regulatory change (overturning the FCC Order), according to a report by  Next Century Cities
• Conditional Use Permit: Maintain that all wireless facilities both small cells and cell towers require a Conditional Use Permit by the planning department followed by an encroachment permit. (remove Minor wireless permit section 18.41.050 and add all wireless communications facilities to section 18.41.060) which is reopened every 3 to 5 years-  Sonoma City, California 
• Significant Gap in coverage: Maintain requirement for significant gap in coverage to be identified for approval of both small cells and cell towers. Note: Telecom still needs to show this.
• Proof of NEPA Review: Provide information showing this installation has received any required review (e.g., environmental assessment and review) by the FCC pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or is exempt from such requirements. If exempt, please state what the basis is for the exemption and provide proof, including supporting documents that establish that this installation meets such exemption.
• Least Intrusive Methods: Maintain requirement for the least intrusive methods to fill the gap for both small cells and cell towers. A justification study which includes the rationale for selecting the proposed use; if applicable, a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would serve; and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless service. Said study shall include all existing structures and/or alternative sites evaluated for potential installation of the proposed facility and why said alternatives are not a viable option. Note:Telecom still needs to follow this. (Old-Palos Verdes)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance. All facilities shall be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (New Palos Verdes)
• Setbacks:
  • 1500 Foot Setback from other small cell installations: Every effort shall be made to locate small cell installations no less than 1500 feet away from the Permittee’s or any Lessee’s nearest other small cell installation, or within ______ feet of any permanent residential dwelling. (ART Ordinance) Setbacks Between Small Cells:Calabasas, Petaluma, Fairfax, Mill Valley, and San Ramon (all California) require 1,500 feet between SCFs. (Boulder, CO Recommendation-Boulder Colorado Small Cell Ordinance Legal Opinion Policy Report).    (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Setback From Roads or Property Lines: No new tower shall be constructed without a setback from the tower’s base of at least 1.5 times the tower height to a public or private road and at least 2.5 times the tower height to the nearest property line. Scenic America Model
  • Setbacks from Schools:   500-1500 foot setback from schools. Palo Alto Unified School District Cell Tower Policy Palo Alto 300 foot setback
  • 500 (to 1500)Meter setback recommended around schools, hospitals and homes.The setback for Calabasas, CA is 1,000 feet (Bolder, CO Report),  500 ft Setback from residencies (Petaluma). Engineering Article -“Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019)  Pearce M.  Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425
• Location – Disfavored or Favored Locations
  • Preferred or Disfavored Locations: In addition to residential areas, designate areas where cell towers are disfavored and not permitted, i.e. near schools, residential areas, city buildings, sensitive habitats, on ridge lines, public parks, Historic Overlay Districts,  in open spaces or where they are favoredi.e. commercial zoning areas, industrial zoning areas. (Boulder, CO Report Boulder Colorado Small Cell Ordinance Legal Opinion Policy Report).  (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Disfavored Location:Every effort should be made to avoid placement of small cell installations in close proximity to residences, particularly from sleeping and living areas. Viable and defendable setbacks will vary based on zoning. (ART ordinance) (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Prohibited Zones for Small Cells: Prohibits small cell telecommunication facilities in residential zones and multi-family zoning districts (Mill Valley)  (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Drip line of tree/heritage trees: No facility shall be permitted to be installed in the drip line of any tree in the right-of-way…. (Old-Palos Verdes)- 15ft in Los Altos (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Order of Preference – Location: The order of preference for the location of small cell installations in the Town, from most preferred to least preferred, is:1. Industrial zone
    2. Commercial zone
    3. Mixed commercial and residential zone 4. Residential zone (ART Ordinance and New Palos Verdes).  (Los Altos Ordinance)
  • Fall Zone:The proposed small cell installation shall have an adequate fall zone to minimize the possibility of damage or injury resulting from pole collapse or failure, ice fall or debris fall, and to avoid or minimize all other impacts upon adjoining property
• Require Mock-up: Require full-size mock-up of proposed SCFs and other pertinent information in order to adequately consider the same potential impacts. It also may want to adopt Larkspur’s approach to require construction drawings, a site survey, and photo simulations. (Boulder, CO Report )
• Notification of Property Owners:
  • Public notifications of planning commission hearings; Either in newspaper, website  no less than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing.
  • Notification of all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed installation within X timeframe
• Speculative Equipment Prohibited. The city finds that the practice of “pre- approving” wireless equipment or other improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install but may wish to install at some undetermined future time does not serve the public’s best interest. The city shall not approve any equipment or other improvements in connection with a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (Old-Palos Verdes)
• Transfer of Permit: The permittee shall not transfer the permit to any person prior to the completion of the construction of the facility covered by the permit, unless and until the transferee of the permit has submitted the security instrument required by section 12.18.080(B)(5). (Palos Verdes)
• Authorization from Property Owner: If the facility will be located on or in the property of someone other than the owner of the facility (such as a street light pole, street signal pole, utility pole, utility cabinet, vault, or cable conduit), the applicant shall provide a duly executed written authorization from the property owner(s) authorizing the placement of the facility on or in the property owner’s property. (Palos Verdes)
• Community Meeting: The applicant would be required to hold a community meeting at least two weeks prior to the planning commission hearing on the use permit. (San Anselmo)
• Noise
  • Noise Complaints: If a nearby property owner registers a noise complaint, the city shall forward the same to the permittee. Said compliant shall be reviewed and evaluated by the applicant. The permittee shall have ten (10) business days to file a written response regarding the complaint which shall include any applicable remedial measures. If the city determines the complaint is valid and the applicant has not taken any steps to minimize the noise, the city may hire a consultant to study, examine and evaluate the noise complaint and the permittee shall pay the fee for the consultant if the site is found in violation of this chapter. The matter shall be reviewed by the director. If the director determines sound proofing or other sound attenuation measures should be required to bring the project into compliance with the Code, the director may impose conditions on the project to achieve said objective. (Old- Palos Verdes)
  • Noise Restrictions: Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise.
    • Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall nor be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
    • At no time shall any facility be permitted to exceed 45 DBA and the noise levels specified in Municipal Code XXX.  (Los Altos Ordinance)
• Insurance: Pollution Exclusion Clause – In order to protect the city from liability (and bankruptcy) from harm to humans or the environment cities have a legitimate right to require proper health protective insurance on their master license or emergency ordinance. Without proper city insurance that does not have a pollution exclusion cities can be sued for damages by individuals. All of the major insurance companies including Lloyds of London since 2011 exclude RF radiation or electromagnetic frequencies from coverage- it is an exclusion. There are a few companies who can cover pollution liability and this should be required.  Scarsdale, New York has apparently included a provision in their ordinance to require pollution free exclusion in their policies.  Cities also have the right to regulate the operation of the WTF facility.
• Note: The risk manager for the city needs to require a copyof the insurance policy from both the operator and installer of the telecom equipment that includes the Board of Directors and Assets of the Corporationto be clear about which entity you are signing the agreement with. Telecom companies can offer indemnity insurance from another entity which can potentially be a shell company with few or no assets and thus leave cities bare with regards to insurance coverage or adequate defense of a lawsuit. After signing the master license agreement the telecom company requesting the permit would be required to produce the certificate of liability along with the actual policy and insurance clause that shows coverage without a pollution exclusion. A one page list of the certificate of liability is not enough to protect a city. Careful scrutiny and legal input is necessary in reviewing insurance.See Interplay of Insurance, Indemnity and Limits of Liabilityby Safety National. https://www.safetynational.com/conferencechronicles/interplay-of-insurance-indemnity-and-limits-of-liability/“Pollutant” Exclusions in Property Insurance Policies, Part 3. June 19, 2014. https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2014/06/articles/insurance/pollutant-exclusions-in-property-insurance-policies-part-3/Electromagnetic Field Insurance Policy Exclusion Are the Standard– Includes names of insurance companies who do cover pollution liability. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10906001218058/Electromagnetic%20Field%20Insurance%20Policy%20Exclusions.pdf
• General Liability Insurance $ 2-5 million without a pollution exclusion clauseto protect the City: The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the public right-of-way, an insurance policy or policies of commercial general liability insurance, with minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000)for each occurrence and Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) in the aggregate, that fully protects the city from claims and suits for bodily injury and property damage without a pollution exclusion. The insurance must name the city and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers as additional named insureds, be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California with a rating of at least a A:VII in the latest edition of A.M. Best’s Insurance Guide, and include an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except with thirty (30) days prior written notice to the city, except for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium…
• Endangerment, Interference: No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
• Annual Recertification: Each year, commencing on the first anniversary of the issuance of the permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Town an affidavit which shall list all active small cell wireless installations it owns within the Town by location, certifying that (1) each active small cell installation is covered by liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 per installation, naming the Town as additional insured; and (2) each active installation has been inspected for safety and found to be in sound working condition and in compliance with all federal safety regulations concerning RF exposure limits. (ART Ordinance)
• Radiofrequency Testing and Monitoring
  • Radiofrequency: RF Compliance Report and RF Data Request Sheet (Attachment A):  Require all applicants to submit an RF Compliance Reportsigned by a registered Professional Engineer, together with a completed form RF Data Request Sheet (Attachment A)that provides technical information sufficient for power density verification.  The RF Compliance Reportshould provide power density calculations in microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) as well as percent of FCC standard; and power density calculations should be provided in tabular form showing power density at 10’ increments out to a distance of 1000 feet at ground level (6’) and to second-story building level (16’). Attachment A – RF Data Request Sheet
  • Independent Expert: The director is authorized to retain on behalf of the city an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The review is intended to be a review of technical aspects of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and shall address any or all of the following: xxxx (Old- Palos Verdes)
  • Random Testing for RF Compliance: The Town shall have the right to employ a qualified RF engineer to conduct an annual random and unannounced test of the Permittee’s small cell wireless installations located within the Town to certify their compliance with all FCC radio-frequency emission limits as they pertain to exposure to the general public. The reasonable cost of such tests shall be paid by the Permittee. (ART Ordinance)
• Violation of Compliance Notification: In the event that such independent tests reveal that any small cell installation or installations owned or operated by Permittee or its Lessees, singularly or in the aggregate, is emitting RF radiation in excess of FCC exposure guidelines as they pertain to the general public, the Town shall notify the Permittee and all residents living within 1500 feet of the small cell installation(s) of the violation, and the Permittee shall have forty-eight (48) hours to bring the small cell installation(s) into compliance. Failure to bring the small cell installation(s) into compliance shall result in the forfeiture of all or part of the Compliance Bond, and the Town shall have the right to require the removal of such installation(s), as the Town in its sole discretion may determine is in the public interest. (ART Ordinance)
• Non- acceptance of Applications: Where such annual re-certification has not been properly or timely submitted, or equipment no longer in use has not been removed within the required 30-day period, no further applications for small cell wireless installations will be accepted by the Town until such time as the annual re-certification has been submitted and all fees and fines paid. (ART ordinance)
• Aesthetics and Undergrounding:All equipment not to be installed on or inside the pole must be located underground, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole. Each installation is to have its own dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
• Aesthetic Requirements: “Law firm Baller Stokes & Lide highlighted the following aesthetic considerations that local governments can consider: “Size of antennas, equipment boxes, and cabling;
  • Painting of attachments to match mounting structures;
  • Use of shrouds, stealth techniques, or other camouflage;
  • Flush-mounting of antennas;
  • Placement of equipment in the pole base rather than on the outside of the pole;
  • Consistency with the character of historic neighborhoods;
  • Minimum spacing between attachments;” and
  • Aesthetic standards for residential neighborhoods, including “any minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds and minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds; maximum structure heights; or limitations on the use of small, decorative structures as mounting locations.” (Boulder, CO Report)

There is another perspective from a group advocating ordinance rules which control the amount of radiation from cell tower antennas that are placed and thus not “effectively prohibit” cell towers in a city (which is illegal).  They advocate writing into the ordinance what effective power can be radiated, as well as vertical and horizontal offsets, which are just enough to get 5 bars on a cell phone at 1/2 mile at radiation levels much lower than typical RF compliance reports propose. As always, having a qualified attorney who is independent of industry influence examine the ordinance rules is recommended. Information found here at Vertical-Horizontal-Power.