Local Small-Cells Bill Meets Headwinds in Montgomery County, Maryland, Council
Council members in Maryland’s Montgomery County disagreed on the urgency of streamlining local processes to spur small-cell wireless infrastructure deployment, at a livestreamed Tuesday meeting. The council planned to vote on a zoning change meant to streamline processes for accepting…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
small-cell applications but tabled the item after lengthy debate. The council had time only to vote 6-3 on an amendment stipulating more applications to go through a conditional-use process that requires public hearings rather than the quicker limited-use process provided for many such applications in the bill. It could bring the item back next week but faces an Oct. 31 deadline to pass bills; if it doesn’t come up before then, the proposal would have to wait until a new council convenes in December, a council spokesperson said. County staff said County Executive Ike Leggett opposed the amendment because it could prohibit some service, contrary to federal law. A conditional-use process costs $16,000, but the FCC recently required a $100 maximum application fee per facility, noted Jeffrey Zyontz, the county's senior legislative analyst. Council President Hans Riemer (D) voted against the amendment and said he supported the original proposal. "We can't stop the world from turning. 5G is coming." Since the federal government pre-empts the county from prohibiting service, there’s no good reason to require an expensive process that pretends citizens have the right to reject deployment in their neighborhoods, he said. All the county can do is establish “clear, simple rules” for small cells, he said. The argument didn’t convince most council members. Council member Roger Berliner (D) said he doesn't get why requiring conditional use would be unlawful. “Citizens have rights” and should have a voice even if it doesn’t come cheap or change the outcome, he said. Council member Tom Hucker (D), who proposed the amendment, said the proposed zoning change wasn't a question of the county having a “future or no future.” No other Maryland localities are considering a similar change, the Maryland legislature can’t pass a bill until February at earliest, and the issue is probably too controversial to pass a state bill that soon, he said. The county is effectively asking for a state small-cells law if it can't pass a local law, observed Council Member George Leventhal (D).