Safe Wireless Ordinances

Communities across the U.S. have enacted protective local ordinances aimed at limiting the placement of cell towers and small cell antennas near sensitive areas. Due to the decentralized nature of zoning and regulatory authority, there isn't a comprehensive, nationwide list of all communities with protective telecommunications ordinances. However, examples of municipalities that have successfully implemented measures to regulate telecommunications infrastructure, include the following.

We recommend you read through the linked documents to see the specific requirements and limitations. Using existing protective telecommunications zoning ordinances as a template to draft your own is a smart approach. These ordinances can provide a solid foundation and help ensure that your draft aligns with proven legal frameworks and standards. Focus on communities that have similar characteristics to yours, such as size, demographics, or geographical features.

Encinitas, CA
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) ranks the cell tower laws in Encenitas, CA among the “most protective ordinances'' in the U.S. It includes strong purpose statements, installation setbacks, pre-notification requirements to residents, radiofrequency radiation testing protocols, design standards, and thorough administrative review processes. Encinitas was one of the first ordinances to  specifically ban discrimination against those sensitive to RF radiation. It requires pollution insurance that can not exclude RF radiation, protects this beachfront community’s character, and gives telecom a number of legal hoops to jump through, making it more expensive for telecom to come into Encinitas. There are restricted areas, but there are “exemptions'' in case telecom cannot go anywhere else. 

Shelburne, MA
EHT ranks Shelburne, MA as one of the “most protective ordinances” in the U.S. It includes purpose statements, installation setbacks, pre-notification requirements to residents, radiofrequency radiation testing protocols, design standards, and thorough administrative review processes. Shelburne prohibits wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500 feet of homes.

Malibu, CA
Malibu was the first city to incorporate Electric Fire Safety Protocol at the design stage so that the safety of macro towers is evaluated before the towers are even built. A series of eight tests must be completed and included in all 5G infrastructure permit applications.

Scarsdale, NY
Limits cellular antennas by establishing 500 foot setbacks from homes, schools and daycare.

Ithaca, NY
Ithaca updated its wireless codes in 2021 to greatly limit redundant cell antennas in the city and more.

New code provisions enacted in 2021 include the following:

  • A 250 foot setback between antennas and homes/schools (old code: 8 feet)
    (Note: Although a 1500 foot setback would be better, since schools are in dense residential areas, this provision will achieve a similar result.)

  • A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)

  • Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna, proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)

  • Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for “future capacity” or to “improve coverage” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a significant gap in coverage

  • Requiring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas

  • Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed antennas

  • Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion

  • Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the City at the expense of the applicant

  • Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public

  • Allowing for revocability (a clause allowing the voiding of any contract requiring its modification in the event of a regulatory change)

  • Mandating certified mail notices of any proposed tower be sent to people living near a proposed site before approval, paid for by the applicant

  • Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA

  • Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas, including any on private homes (aimed at the OTARD challenge)

  • Deputizing any citizen to test for RF emissions

  • Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near wireless facilities

  • Requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of perjury