planning for cellular towers - plannerswebplannersweb.com/wp-content/uploads/1997/10/331.pdf ·...

4

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 2 8 / F A L L 1 9 9 7

ments, see pages 7-9 of this issue].Complicating things further are court

rulings in several states which havebestowed “utility use” status to wirelesstelecommunication facilities, allowingthem in all land-use zones as if they werethe local utility pole, cable junction box,or electric sub-station facility. The “utili-ty” definition is not far off the mark,however, when one realizes that the newPCS wireless providers are vying not onlyfor the mobile communication market-place, but for serving as a substitute forthe wired phone lines presently in yourhome or place of business.

TIME IS MONEY

Many wireless providers optimistical-ly plan for only a six to eight month timeperiod for acquiring, permitting, andbuilding their initial set of transmissionfacilities in order to launch new wirelessservice in a community. Often two ormore wireless providers compete for thesame scarce “friendly” sites within thetarget market, sometimes driving pricesup for available antenna space.

With over $20 billion being spent bywireless carriers for the privilege of oper-ating public frequencies, it’s no surprisethe industry is attempting to gain quickapprovals of their new tower sites tobegin offering service to the public. Andit is understandable when major wirelesstelecommunication companies sue localgovernmental agencies for passing mora-toria on new tower site applicationswhile they take a look at their applicableregulatory codes.

What can planning agencies do,given the provisions of the 1996Telecommunications Act which stronglyfavor the growth of the wireless commu-nications industry?

Many communities, in consultationwith their legal counsel, are developingor modifying zoning ordinances to

Communication Service (PCS) licenseshave been auctioned-off by the FCC, giv-ing high bidders the right to build digitalwireless phone networks which competewith standard cellular service. They havepaid substantial sums of money for theright to operate under these licenses. See

“Personal Communication Services,” on page 10.

Industry analysts predict thatbetween 122,000 and 250,000 new cellsites will be needed to meet the growingdemand of cellular phone subscribers inthe United States alone. As many as halfof these sites will require new towers,especially in suburban and rural areaswhere few suitable tall structures areavailable to lease as antenna supportplatforms.

Did the FCC and Congress knowwhat was coming to American towns andvillages? While the landmark Telecom-munications Act of 1996 does indicate anintent to preserve the authority of stateand local governments over decisionsregarding the “placement, construction,and modifications of personal wirelessservices,” Section 704(a) of the Actstates:

“The regulation of the placement,construction, and modification of per-sonal wireless service facilities by anyState or local government or instrumen-tality thereof shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of func-tionally equivalent services and shall notprohibit or have the effect of prohibiting theprovision of personal wireless services.”(emphasis added).

The Act also expressly preempts stateand local governments from regulatingpersonal wireless communications facili-ties on the basis of the environmentaleffects of radio frequency emissions tothe extent that such facilities complywith the FCC’s regulations concerningsuch emissions. [Editor’s Note: For moreon the Telecommunications Act’s require-

W I R E L E S S T O W E R S

Planning for Cellular Towersby Ben Campanelli

WHY SO MANY TOWERS?

As a planning commissioneror zoning board member, if youhaven’t already been through a tower request, you probably soon will. Infact, chances are you will get to hearquite a few of them. In the early 1980s,the Federal Communications Commis-sion (FCC) granted licenses to two com-peting cellular phone providers in eachcommunity. Over the last 15 years, cellu-lar telephone firms have installed some22,000 antenna support structures. Theyhave used existing building rooftops,towers, water tanks, and similar struc-tures — and occasionally built new tow-ers when no other alternatives wereavailable.

Starting in late 1995, from three to sixadditional “next generation” Personal

Seated in the front row of themeeting room is a group ofstern-faced town residents. Sit-ing to the rear is a tightly knitcadre of business attired peoplearmed with display boards,brightly colored transparencyoverlays, and stacks of neatlystapled handouts. Are they theWal-Mart group? No, that’snext month. It must be thosetower people.

Both groups wait patiently as theitems on the agenda are slowly dis-pensed. The front row participantsperk-up when the tower agenda itemis read: A public hearing will now beheld considering the appli-cation ofNew Age Wireless, a Delaware Limit-ed Partnership request for approval ofa 195 foot wireless communication“utility” facility proposed in an R-1residential district.

ensure local review consistent with therequirements of the TelecommunicationsAct. Not as often focused on, but in thelong-run even more beneficial, is strongcounty or regional planning for the sitingof cellular towers. This is best donethrough a collaborative effort involvingall parties interested in the issue — pub-lic and private.

ROLE OF COUNTY& REGIONAL PLANNING

County and regional planning agen-cies are well-situated to assist communi-ties in making sure that new cellulartowers are planned to minimize negativeimpacts. Given that cellular providersplan their networks from a regional (andbroader) perspective, it makes sense forthe public to plan for the siting oftelecommunications facilities at the samescale — instead of each locality seekingto plan for tower siting independently ofneighboring communities.

Based on my experience, the follow-ing are some actions that county orregional planning agencies can take tohelp ensure that the siting of cellulartowers meshes with local (and industry)needs.

1. Provide community educationalworkshops and forums at which plan-ners, industry representatives, and localresidents can discuss — and begin tocooperatively plan for — the develop-ment of cellular networks in their area.

2. Conduct a county-wide inventoryof existing structures suitable for use asantenna support platforms, such as com-munications towers, buildings 70’ ortaller, water tanks, and inactive chim-neys. As part of the inventory, also identi-fy existing or planned public facilitiesand lands upon which antennas might bemounted or towers constructed — e.g.,government centers, public works opera-tion yards, police and fire stations,

ters on a single tower). Incentives mightinclude tax abatements for “stealth” orcamouflaged towers, and an expeditedreview and approval process for towersproposed within preferred land use areas,using public facilities, or co-locatingwith other providers. “Stealth” Towers, p. 6

8. Prepare criteria or a checklist fornew tower approval (which can be usedat the county/regional level, or adaptedfor local use). Among items which mightbe included:

• Review of site search ring analysisreports documenting the scope of theapplicant’s search for existing structuresor property owners in preferred land useareas and the rationale for selecting thesite under consideration..

• Review of visual impact analysis,including “simulations” or digitallyreproduced depictions of a “virtual”tower of like size and type viewed fromvarious locations around the proposedsite. See also, “Visual Analysis,” on page 11.

9. Provide planning and engineeringassistance to communities, includinghelp with review of tower applications.

Time to go home. It’s nowten-thirty P.M. Everyone’spatience is wearing a little thin.

The tower applicant’s lawyer didn’tknow if the owners of the 440’ FMradio tower on Harris Hill Rd. in thetown had been asked if it could beused as an antenna site. The appli-cant’s radio frequency engineer testi-fied that he didn’t believe the sitewould work because it was 1 1/2miles from the site search ring andwould interfere with a cell siteplanned in an adjacent town. Hedidn’t have signal propagation cover-age maps with him to back-up hisassertion.

As the night wore on, it only got

surplus highway right-of-ways.3. Classify and prioritize preferred

land use areas for new towers. This stepwill require cooperation and input notjust from local governments within thecounty/region, but from the wirelesscommunications providers.

4. Maintain a central data-base andmap of inventoried existing structures,potentially available public facilities andland, and preferred land use areas.

5. Have wireless service providerssubmit, and annually update, a county-wide antenna network plan.

6. Develop criteria for tower sitingand design, including preferred con-struction materials, types and colors, set-back requirements, height restrictions,accessory equipment location, fencing,access road criteria, co-location capacitycertification, FAA lighting requirements,and ground screening.

7. Develop incentives to encouragegood tower design and co-location oftowers (i.e., having more than one cellu-lar service provider locate their transmit-

5


continued on page 6

Short monopole ~100’ w/split panel array (cellular)

BE

N C

AM

PA

NE

LL

I

6


“Stealth” TowersNo, they’re not part of a secret

Defense Department program. “Stealth”towers are simply towers which are cam-ouflaged in ways to minimize their visibili-ty. For service providers, the often triplecosts of building such towers must beweighed against the potential legal andintangible public relations costs associatedwith an all-out brawl with local govern-ment approval agencies, impacted proper-ty owners, and neighborhood associations— as well as the lost potential revenuegenerated by each site during the delayedmonths it’s not on the air. See also “Cam-ouflaging” on page 11.

worse. The applicant’s site acquisitionconsultant admitted he did not con-tact the town’s public works directorto see if the DPW’s 40’ roof-mountedtower stub could be rebuilt to accom-modate both the town’s antennas andthe applicant’s base station equip-ment.

In response to the neighbors’ con-cern about the health effects fromradio signals emitted from the pro-posed antennas, the applicant’s expertconsultant told them that the highpowered TV broadcast towers and50,000 watt radio station signalsemanating from miles away were farmore powerful than what the appli-cant’s signal levels were going to be.

The commission votes to tablethe tower application so that theapplicant can do more homeworkand answer all the questions put for-ward at the meeting. The neighbor-hood folks are outside in the parkinglot discussing whether they shouldhire their own lawyer to fight theproposed tower. Someone’s cellularphone rings. It’s one of their kids ask-ing his dad to pick-up a pizza they’veordered for a sleep-over party. It’stime to go home.�

Ben Campanelli headsCommQuest, a communi-cations site acquisitionconsulting firm whichemphasizes working close-ly with government plan-ning and zoning agencieswhen siting towers forindustry clients. He hasbeen involved with telecommunications issues thepast eleven years. Prior to that, he served in vari-ous positions with the City of Rochester, NewYork, including Deputy Commissioner of Build-ings and Property Conservation.

Campanelli is author of the Cellular TowerGuide, a resource manual for local officials, land-use planners and legal professionals on the wire-less communication business and site acquisitionprocess. For ordering information, contact Cam-panelli at: 20 Shaftsbury Rd., Rochester, NY14610; phone & fax: 716-482-4063; e-mail:[email protected].

Planning for Cellular Towerscontinued from page 5

Wireless Network DesignThe communications site

acquisition process is like right-of-wayacquisition work associated with utilityfacility build-out projects. Both involveland acquisition before the project canproceed. An important difference is thatthe wireless industry does not have thepower of eminent domain. As more wire-less carriers “mine” site rings in each com-munity, building and land owners arebecoming more familiar with the rules ofthe game. Even when owners are aware ofcontroversial proposed tower sites in theirregion, a willing owner with a suitable sitecan almost always be found within a typi-cal site ring.

There are various techniques fordesigning wireless communications“grids.” A grid is a set of geographic areasor “cells” which organize the radio signalsfor the specific wireless service so thatneeds of prospective users operating cellu-lar phones in the system are met.

1. The Perfect Grid. A “perfect grid”wireless network plan looks like a honey-comb with each propagation “ring,” orcell, having a hexagonal shape whichinterlocks with adjoining cells forming aseamless grid. See Figure 1.

2. The Grid-in-Progress. The construc-tion program is rolled-out in phases withemphasis on providing coverage first tothe most lucrative areas within a market.Targeted areas include downtowns, subur-ban commercial zones, industrial parks,entertainment districts, shipping facilities,inter-state highways, marinas, and air-ports.

3. Site Rings. A coverage ring is thetotal contiguous land area which is intend-ed to be served by a cell site base stationfacility. A site search ring is the area insidea coverage ring within which a suitable“friendly” structure or land-lease parcelmust be acquired for use as a base stationfacility. See Figure 2.

Figure 1—The Perfect Grid

Figure 2—Site Rings

collocation of antennas on existing tallstructures as “permitted uses” in localcodes will often provide the wirelesstelecommunication companies sufficientadequate options for siting tower facili-ties without facing a long, drawn-outreview by a local planning or zoningboard.

Furthermore, designating certainlarge tracts of vacant land in residential-ly-zoned areas, other more sensitivecommercial areas, or certain public facili-ty use areas as areas for “conditionally-permitted uses” with stricter standards ofreview by a local planning or zoningboard has proven effective. An effectivecondition to be placed on such a condi-tional use permit is to require the compa-ny to provide proof that it is unable tolocate its tower facility within one of the“permitted use” areas in the local code.

This hierarchy of land use areas andlevels of administrative review of permitshas already worked effectively in somecommunities. For example, the new PCScompanies which are actively buildingout their systems have greater flexibilityin the siting of such facilities and havereadily sought those areas where the useis “permitted” rather than “conditionallypermitted.”

With the multitude of personal wire-less service providers entering the mar-ket-place, municipal officials must directthe tower facility’s engineering stake tobe driven in a place in the sand which ismost desirable to the community and itsresidents. �

R. Todd Hunt, a partner with Walter & Haver-field, P.L.L. in Cleveland, Ohio, is an experiencedtrial and appellate lawyer and legal counselor onmunicipal law, land use, and constitutional issues.The above article is reprinted with permission ofthe publisher from the May/June1997 edition ofMunicipal Lawyer, published by the InternationalMunicipal Lawyers Association (1100 VermontAve., N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005).

effectively eliminate the provision ofwireless services in the community or, atthe other end of the spectrum, be overlypermissive causing proliferation of suchfacilities in the community.

7



Sticks in the Air, Stakes in the Sandby R. Todd Hunt, Esq.

Not since the advent of fund-ing for the interstate highwaysystem, has federal legislation had such a visual impact upon the land-scape as has a very small section of thefederal Telecommunications Act of 1996.Unless a community’s municipal offi-cials, by rare circumstance, have notreceived a tower facility application froma personal wireless telecommunicationservice provider, they most likely havebumped up against [section 704] of the1996 Act that deals with personal wire-less service facilities and their relation tolocal land use regulation.

It is imperative that local govern-ments update their local zoning and landuse regulations to accommodate the pro-visions of Section 704 if they hope tohave much say in the siting of communi-cation tower facilities. As one of the tech-nical consultants I have worked withover the past year continually remindsme, once “an engineering stake is drivenin the sand” for a tower (analogous to theproverbial “drawing of a line in thesand”), the wireless tower technologydictates that the options for the siting ofsurrounding towers is necessarilyreduced.

In assisting various communitiesover the past year on these issues, I haveseen several trends develop. Some com-munities attempt to deal with the 1996Act by using traditional zoning methodsof confining tower facilities to certainzoning districts, such as industrial andcommercial districts, and imposing veryrestrictive height, setback and aestheticrequirements, such as substantial land-scaping, painting of facilities certain col-ors, or even camouflaging towers tomake them appear to be trees in theneighborhood.

Depending upon the size and charac-teristics of the municipality, these tradi-tional zoning methods can either

PINPOINT SPECIFIC LANDAREAS IN THE

COMMUNITY THAT AREMORE ACCEPTABLE THAN

OTHERS FOR TOWERFACILITIES.

A much more effective method ofdeveloping zoning and land use regula-tions has been to seek the assistance ofboth planning and wireless telecommu-nication experts to perform a compre-hensive study of the community, itstopography, its land uses and its pro-posed land uses in order to pinpoint spe-cific land areas in the community that aremore acceptable than others for towerfacilities.

The next step is to create a hierarchyof those acceptable land areas that havebeen identified in the study. The conceptof an overlay zoning district works wellin this situation. The overlay districtretains the underlying zoning regula-tions, where not specifically supersededby the new regulations, and does notnecessarily track existing zoning districtlines.

For example, certain large tracts ofgovernmentally-owned land, large indus-trial sites, limited access highway loca-tions, and high tension electric powerline areas may be more acceptable fortowers than certain general commercialareas or residentially-zoned areas. Desig-nating some of those more acceptableareas as “permitted use” areas for towerfacilities and designating the location or

obtain required permits for towers than itwas some years ago. However, casesdecided under the TCA demonstrate thatstate and local governments cannot treatproviders who “got there first” differentlythan those who follow. Such treatmentwould give an unfair competitive advan-tage to the early market entrants.

For example, a court has ruled that azoning board’s denial of a permit for aPCS provider because two cellularproviders were already providing servicein the same area constituted unreason-able discrimination. Similarly, under theTCA a municipality may not simplydecide that it already has enough towersand, on that basis, deny an application .

While the TCA makes clear that nomunicipality may flatly exclude personalwireless service facilities from within itsborders, the law also invalidates localregulations and decisions that have theeffect of preventing a personal wirelessservice provider from offering effectiveservice.

Thus a court has found that a munic-ipality’s denial of permission to constructa PCS site in an area necessary to serve abusy Interstate highway corridor (wherecompeting companies were providinguninterrupted service) violated the TCA.The court reasoned that the denial wouldhave increased the PCS provider’s costs— by requiring it to find a less desirable,alternative site — and thereby reducedits ability to compete throughout itsentire network.

In another recent example, a stateland use court invalidated the zoningregulations of a Vermont town that effec-tively excluded cell sites from all of thehigh ground in that town and limitedsites to valleys and floodplains. In mak-ing this ruling, the Court held that: “Inmountainous and forested terrain, andespecially in relatively steep and narrowvalleys, cellular phone technology

PCS sites — regarding RFR. As long asthe operators of those facilities complywith the applicable FCC regulations,state and local land use authorities arepreempted from taking action based onRFR. In contrast, zoning boards andplanning commissions may continue toregulate RFR levels for other facilities,such as television and radio stations.

8



The Telecommunications Act of 1996by Brian J. Sullivan, Esq.

Through the Telecommunica-tions Act of 1996 (TCA), Con-gress and the President placed the United States squarely on the infor-mation “superhighway.” At its core, theTCA seeks to ensure that American con-sumers and businesses will have accessto increasingly sophisticated communi-cations technologies at competitive rates.

During the decade preceding enact-ment of the TCA, the demand for cellularcommunications services grew at anannual rate of 30 to 35 percent. In orderto meet this demand, the companieslicensed by the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) to provide these ser-vices sought to construct “cell sites” onbuildings and existing communicationstowers. Despite their efforts, no suitablestructures existed in many areas, and theproviders sought permission from zon-ing boards and planning commissions toerect new communications towers. Manyof these applications faced oppositionfrom nearby residents who voiced fearsof this seemingly new technology.

New Technology or Old?

The TCA attempts to address thelocalized resistance to this evolving tech-nology by instituting a national standardfor the consideration of cellular and per-sonal communications service (PCS)facility applications. See “Personal Communica-

tions Services”, page 10. That standard containsthree main components: (1) regulationof radio frequency radiation (RFR); (2)prohibitions against activities that effec-tively prohibit the provision of wirelessservice or discriminate among providers;and (3) mandates to conduct the localhearing process in a manner that ensuresdue process and timely decision making.

1. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR)Only the Federal Communications Com-mission (FCC) may regulate personalwireless service facilities — cellular and

STATE AND LOCALGOVERNMENTS CANNOTTREAT PROVIDERS WHO

“GOT THERE FIRST”DIFFERENTLY THAN THOSE

WHO FOLLOW.

As the FCC has observed, mosttower-mounted cell sites emit RFR at lev-els that are hundreds to thousands oftimes below the applicable exposure lim-its. Therefore, where the tower-mountedantennas are more than 10 meters (about33 feet) above ground level, the FCC“categorically excludes” cellularproviders from having to prove compli-ance with the FCC’s RFR regulations. Inother words, the FCC presumes suchcompliance.References: 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); In theMatter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environ-mental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ETDocket No. 93-62, Report and Order (FCC, Aug.1, 1996); Second Memorandum Opinion andOrder (FCC, Aug. 25, 1997).

2. Activities that Effectively Prohibitthe Provision of Wireless Service, orDiscriminate Among Providers.

The FCC typically licenses two cellu-lar providers and up to six PCS providersin each “market.” The TCA mandatesthat competition between these providersbe open and free. In the land use climatethat exists today, it is more difficult to

demands a site that is relatively high incomparison to the surrounding topogra-phy.” Hence, in such areas, municipali-ties must make reasonable provision forpersonal wireless service providers tohave access to the high ground.References: 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(I)(i); West-ern PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial ZoningAuthority of the City and County of Santa Fe, etal., 957 F.Supp. 1230 (D.N.M. Feb. 27, 1997);Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Jefferson County, 968F.Supp. 1457 (N.D. Ala. July 31, 1997); UnitedStates Cellular Corp. v. Board of Adjustment of theCity of Des Moines, Iowa, LACL NO. CL 00070195 (Iowa District Court for Polk County Dec.31, 1996); In re Appeals of Vermont RSA Ltd.Partnership d/b/a Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile,Docket Nos. E96-192 and E96-205 (Vt. Env. Ct.July 18, 1997).

3. Affirmative Obligations on Stateand Local Decisionmakers

• Decision Within a Reasonable Peri-od of Time. Congress, concerned thatopposition to applications for cell siteswould result in delays in the local hear-ing process, mandated that zoning andplanning authorities act on such applica-tions within a reasonable period of time.Courts determine reasonableness withreference to the type of applicationinvolved. For example, the time typicallyneeded to rule on a conditional useapplication for a personal wireless ser-vice facility should be no different thanthe time needed to rule on any other con-ditional use application.

In the first months after enactment ofthe TCA, the delays that Congress feareddid materialize in some communities.Because of these delays (and concernsthat remanding an overturned denial to alocal zoning board would simply resultin more delays or another denial), courtshave issued writs of mandamus, com-pelling boards to issue permits as soon aspossible. Very recently, a court has invali-dated a moratorium that prevented per-sonal wireless providers from filing any

New Technologyor Old?The basic technology

employed at cell sites has existed fordecades. A cell site consists of radio equip-ment and antennas that transmit andreceive radio signals at the upper end ofthe ultra high frequency portion of theelectromagnetic spectrum. Due to lack ofuse by television broadcasters, the FCC, inthe early 1980s, reallocated these frequen-cies to be used for cellular service.

Recent technological advances havereduced the price of cellular services andhave made more sophisticated options —such as voice mail and alphanumeric mes-sages — available. Nonetheless, cellularservice constitutes a natural evolution ofan older method of communication ratherthan a dramatic shift in technology. Sincethe 1920s, first broadcasters, then two-way radio and paging companies, havebeen constructing towers on which theyhave mounted antennas that emit radiowaves. Most of those broadcast towers arefar taller and emit signals of much greaterpower than those used at cell sites.

permit applications in that locality.• Denials Must Be in Writing and Be

Supported by Substantial Evidence. If thereis an appeal from a denial of an applica-tion for a personal wireless service facili-ty, the state or local government bears theburden of proof to show that it based itsdecision on substantial evidence con-tained in a written record. The courtshave made clear that substantial evidencemeans more than “conclusory statementsfor which no explanations are provided.”Further, the mere existence of opposi-tion, even numerous and outspoken,does not constitute substantial evidenceand, by itself, does not suffice to supporta decision to deny an application for apersonal wireless service facility.

Instead, substantial evidence re-quires reliance on specific, concrete evi-dence presented to the state or localboards. The state or local board must“provide written findings of fact whichindicate their evidentiary basis.”References: 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii); BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, et al.,944 F.Supp 923 (N.D. Ga. 1996); United StatesCellular Corp. v. Des Moines, supra; Illinois RSANo. 3, Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F. Supp. 732(C.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 1997); Sprint Spectrum v. Jef-ferson County, supra; Seattle SMSA Limited Part-nership, et al. v. San Juan County, No. C96-15212(W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 1997).

SUMMING UP:

The thrust of Section 704 of theTelecommunications Act is on fosteringthe growth of cellular and PCS technolo-gies. To help achieve this, the TCA barslocal regulations that have the effect ofprohibiting the siting of cellular and PCStowers, or discriminating among serviceproviders. Given the continuing surge indemand for personal wireless servicesand the corresponding increase in localpermit applications for personal wirelessservice facilities, it behooves local zoningand planning officials to follow thesedevelopments closely. �

9


Brian J. Sullivan, Esq.is a member of the Burling-ton, Vermont law firm ofBurak Anderson & Mel-loni, PLC. He graduatedfrom the University ofChicago with General andSpecial Honors and fromHarvard Law School cumlaude. Sullivan’s areas of practice include environ-mental and land use law and telecommunicationsissues. He has represented communicationsproviders, as well as municipalities, in a variety ofenvironmental and land use matters.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to thoseof you who provided us with infor-mation about your community’sapproach to dealing with wirelesstowers. Much of the material inthis “Miscellany” comes from yourinput. Our apologies if you sent ininformation we were unable toinclude.

Cellular GrowthBooms

Telecommunications com-panies continue to report steepgrowth in wireless customers.During 1995, Ameritech sawits number of cellular cus-tomers rise 45.6 percent toalmost 1.9 million. BellAtlantic NYNEX Mobilereported a 43.4 percentincrease in customers over thesame period. The BellSouthCorporation saw its revenuesfrom wireless communicationsincrease nearly 70 percentbetween the end of 1993 and1995, compared to a 13 per-cent increase from its overalloperations.

PersonalCommunicationsServices

PCS stands for “personalcommunications services,” amethod of communicationsimilar to cellular. One of theattractions of PCS is that itprovides higher quality recep-tion and allows for the trans-mission of data, as well asvoice (though cellularproviders are developing com-parable capabilities). PCS useshigher frequencies than cellu-lar, which results in PCS sig-nals traveling shorter distancesthan cellular signals. For thisreason, a typical PCS systemwill require more sites than atypical cellular system.

lular industry petition, it hint-ed at its position by “tentative-ly concluding” in a July 28,1997 Public Notice (FCC 97-264) that “moratoria of a fixedduration, which permit localofficials the opportunity tostudy and develop a processfor handling siting requestswould be a legitimate exerciseof local land use authority ...moratoria of a relatively shortand fixed duration may servethe public interest.”

The documents cited aboveare available on the FCC’s Website: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/— which is also an excellentplace to keep up-to-date onFCC policies and rulings.

Co-LocationCo-location (sometimes

spelled “collocation”) is whenmore than one antenna ortransmitter is located on a sin-gle tower. The principal bene-fit from co-location is thatfewer towers are needed toserve a given area. Thisreduces the overall visualimpact of towers on a commu-nity. Co-location, however, cannecessitate taller towers inorder to accommodate multi-ple transmission devices. Itcan also raise tricky issuesinvolving “good faith” negotia-tions between the companyowning the tower and poten-tial competitors seeking toshare space.

Co-location has become afavored policy in many com-munities and regions. Forexample, the City of Solon,Ohio’s ordinance provides that“as a condition of issuing apermit to construct or operatea tower in the City, theowner/operator of the tower isrequired to allow co-locationuntil said tower has reached

Unlike cellular services,PCS providers are issued ablanket license by the Com-mission for their entire geo-graphic area, and are notrequired to individually licensewith the FCC each transmittersite within the market area.Another distinction is that theFCC uses different geographicmarket areas for licensing pur-poses. Instead of using MSAsand RSAs as in the case of cel-lular, for broadband PCS theCommission adopted RandMcNally’s definitions to dividethe United States and its Pos-sessions and Territories into 51major trading areas (MTA) and493 basic trading areas (BTA).

MoratoriaThe FCC is currently con-

sidering a petition filed by theCellular TelecommunicationsIndustry seeking to prohibit alllocal zoning moratoria affect-ing the siting of wirelesstelecommunications facilities.

The FCC’s Local and StateGovernment Advisory Com-mittee has opposed thisrequest noting that: “Moratoriahave permitted communities,often in close consultationwith industry representatives,to modify out-of-date regula-tions and facilitate the place-ment of facilities. In manycommunities, the adoption ofa moratorium has been fol-lowed by the adoption of clearsiting policies and proceduresthat properly balance localsafety and aesthetic concernswith the desire of many localresidents to have access to reli-able personal wirelessservices.” Advisory Recommen-dation Number 4 (June 27,1997).

While the FCC has not (asof October 1) ruled on the cel-

10


full antenna capacity, but in noevent fewer than two addition-al antennas from two addition-al providers.” The owner/operator is also required “tosign a statement that all dis-putes with future providersconcerning co-location and theterms and conditions of co-location shall be submitted tocommercial arbitration ... .”Given the City’s strong prefer-ence for co-location, towerheights up to 199 feet areallowed (in order to accommo-date the extra height usuallyneeded for locating additionalantennas on a tower).

Daly City, California’s, newwireless communications ordi-nance similarly encourages co-location. When applying for apermit, “the applicant shallspecifically state the reasonsfor not co-locating on any ofthe existing monopoles andlattice towers within a 3,000foot radius. ... the applicantmay also be asked to provide aletter from the telecommunica-tions carrier owning or operat-ing the existing facility statingreasons for not permitting co-location.” The Daly City ordi-nance also provides that “as acondition of approval for allfreestanding monopoles, alltelecommunications carriersproposing a monopole shallprovide a written commitmentto the Director [of Economic& Community Development]that they shall allow otherwireless carriers to co-locateantennas on the monopoleswhere technically and eco-nomically feasible.”

In Vermont, the WindhamRegional Plan includes a policyto “discourage the develop-ment of new sites for transmis-sion and receiving stations infavor of utilizing existing


A Wireless Miscellany

facilities.” This policy wasrecently applied by the stateEnvironmental Board in deny-ing a land use permit for a 110foot communications tower.The Environmental Board con-cluded that the applicant failedto adequately identify andassess existing facilities andfailed to negotiate in goodfaith with the owners of otherexisting facilities. Gary Savoie,#2W0991-EB (Aug. 27, 1997)[Note: The Board’s decisioncontains an interesting analysisof some of the issues that cancome up in determiningwhether an applicant has beennegotiating in “good faith” toco-locate on another carrier’stower].

The City of Overland Park,Kansas, communications tow-ers ordinance contains severalprovisions designed to encour-age co-location. One limits ini-tial special use permits fortowers to five years. “At thetime of renewal the applicantshall demonstrate to the satis-faction of the City that a good-faith effort has been made tocooperate with other providersto establish co-location at thetower site.” The ordinancedefines “good-faith effort” asincluding “timely response toco-location inquiries fromother providers and sharing oftechnical information to evalu-ate the feasibility of establish-ing co-location.”

CamouflagingTowers

Another policy encouragedin many new telecommunica-tions tower ordinances is tocamouflage towers and relatedequipment, or make them asinconspicuous as possible.

The City of Liberty, Mis-souri’s wireless communica-tions ordinance encourages theuse of “alternative tower struc-tures” (such as grain silos, util-ity poles, clock towers, andsteeples), as well as other

ly or wholly conceals theantenna or minimizes itsappearance in relation to theprincipal use of the stealthstructure.”

Planning Director KathiIngrish notes that “DukePower Company has begunoffering their transmissiontowers as antenna locations, sowe specifically wrote inallowances to exceed heightlimits when on existing‘stealth’ structures.” Ingrishalso observes that “forMatthews, what I see as the‘saving grace’ is the localpower company’s participationin the communications game.They are marketing themselvesas a host for antennas. Sincethere are four transmissionlines running out from a cen-tral point, and their towers aremuch taller than anything elsearound, they provide goodopportunities for antenna loca-tions without adding newspikes into the horizon.”

A number of companieshave already recognized thatthere is a rapidly growing mar-ket for camouflaged towers.The Larson Company, based inTucson, Arizona, has built onits specialty of fabricating arti-ficial landscapes for themeparks and zoos by developingways of disguising poles sothat they look, for example,

existing buildings, by provid-ing a simpler review processfor those applications.

According to city plannerBonnie Johnson: “The planadopted by the City Counciltakes the approach of beingflexible on location but stricton design. The ordinanceallows wireless communica-tion facilities in any zoningdistrict as long as it fits its sur-roundings. The hope is that bybeing lenient on location andcreating a relatively simpleapproval process — for exam-ple, antennas placed on exist-ing buildings can be approvedadministratively — telecom-munication providers willchoose the path of least resis-tance which are camouflagedfacilities or roof tops in com-mercial areas.”

Along similar lines, theTown of Matthews, North Carolina, seeks to encourage“stealth” towers by allowingthem within residential dis-tricts and by authorizingincreased heights for stealthtowers in other districts. TheMatthews ordinance defines“stealth or concealed struc-ture” as “the support structurefor a communications systemwhich is primarily for anotherprincipal use or accessory tothe principal use on the lotwhere it is located, and partial-

11


like Date Palm or Lodge Pinetrees. Similarly, Stealth Net-work Technologies of NorthCharleston, South Carolina,designs and installs antennasites concealed in bell towers,false chimneys, and other cus-tom-made structures.

Visual AnalysisAs Ben Campanelli suggests

in his article in this issue (see

page 5), planners can requiretower applicants to provide avisual analysis or simulation ofwhat the tower will look likein its surroundings. A numberof communities have incorpo-rated this type of requirementinto their telecommunicationstower ordinances.

The City of Overland Park,Kansas, for example, requiresthat a special use permit appli-cation for a communicationstower include, among otherthings, “a photo simulation ofthe proposed facility fromeffected residential propertiesand public rights-of-way ascoordinated with the Planningstaff.” Similarly, Daly City, Cal-ifornia’s ordinance provides for“visual impact demonstrationsusing photo-simulations ... elevations or other visual orgraphic illustrations to deter-mine potential visual impact.”

continued on page 12

Sonoma, California’s newwireless ordinance requiresthat applicants “submit a visu-al analysis, which may includephoto montage, field mock upor other techniques, whichidentifies the potential visualimpacts of the proposed facili-ty. Consideration shall begiven to views from publicareas as well as from privateresidences. The analysis shallassess the cumulative impactsof the proposed facility andother existing and foreseeabletelecommunication facilities inthe area, and shall identify andinclude all feasible mitigationmeasures consistent with thetechnological requirements ofthe proposed telecommunica-tion service. All costs for thevisual analysis, and applicableadministrative costs, shall beborne by the applicant.”

“Tiered” ReviewA number of communities

that have recently adoptedtelecommunications towerordinances have made use of“tiered” review. This approachseeks to encourage new anten-nas to be located on existingbuildings (or co-located onexisting towers) by providingfor quick approval, oftenadministratively by staff, inthose cases. Closer scrutiny

is given to applica-tions

mental impacts, communitycharacter, and other factors.

To assist wireless providers,the Commission has integratedinto its geographic informationsystem (GIS) a Cape-wideinventory of existing buildingsand structures which may besuitable for antenna installa-tions. The towns have alsoprovided information on areasin which wireless facilitieswould be both appropriate andinappropriate. This has beenincorporated into the GISmaps (along with waterresource and conservationareas, state and federal lands,and electric transmission cor-rdiors). The Commission iscurrently in the process ofidentifying scenic viewsheds toinclude on the maps as well.

EnvironmentalReview

In implementing theNational Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA), the Federal Com-munications Commissionrequires applicants to prepare“environmental assessments”for towers that are proposed tobe located in certain environ-mentally sensitive areas,including: officially designatedwildlife preserves or wilder-ness areas; 100-year flood-plains; situations which mayaffect threatened or endan-gered species or critical habi-tats; or situations which maycause significant change insurface features, such as wet-land fills, deforestation orwater diversion. In addition,an environmental assessmentmust be prepared when siteslisted or eligible for listing inthe National Register of His-toric Places may be affected.

The fact that an environ-mental assessment is requireddoes not necessarily mean thetower cannot be built. It does,however, call for public noticeand opportunity to commenton the environmental impacts

involving the construction ofnew freestanding towers.

Claremont, California,planners note that thisapproach “makes it easy toobtain permits for the types oftelecommunications facilitiesthat the community prefers,such as facade mounted orconcealed roof mountedantennas, and makes it moredifficult and expensive toobtain approvals for the typesof facilities that the communi-ty wants to discourage, such asfreestanding monopoles.”

The Cape Cod Commis-sion, in a model bylaw (i.e.,ordinance) prepared for itsmember towns, employs atiered review process. Accord-ing to the Commission: “Newfacilities which locate on anexisting tower, monopole,electric utility tower or watertower require no special per-mit under the bylaw, as long asthey do not increase the heightof the structure and as long asthey gain site plan approval.The second tier proposed inthe bylaw would allow newground or building mountsanywhere in town by specialpermit, provided they meetstandards for height, camou-flage, setback, safety anddesign. The third tier is forfacilities which exceed thebylaws height restrictions.Such facilities would beallowed by special permit onlyin a designated overlay districtwhich the town has decidedcan accommodate the newstructures.”

In addition, the CapeCod Commission itself

reviews most newtower proposals as

“developments ofregional impact.”The Commis-sion has adopt-ed criteria forevaluatingtowers basedon environ-

12


of the proposed tower. If theFCC, after review of the com-ments, makes a finding of “nosignificant impact,” the projecthas cleared NEPA scrutiny.

More information on FCC envi-ronmental review and other sit-ing questions is available inFCC Fact Sheet #2, NationalWireless Facilities Siting Poli-cies. This 39-page document isavailable by fax: 202-418-2830(reference document #6508),and on the FCC’s Web site:http://www.fcc.gov/state&local/

Municipal Profitsfrom Towers

If you can't stop towersfrom coming in, why not atleast profit from them? That'sthe approach Gastonia, NorthCarolina (population 62,000)and some other communitieshave taken by encouragingtowers to be located on munic-ipal property, such as parks,golf courses, and school fields.

According to Gastoniaplanning director Jack Kiser,"the city actively marketsmunicipal property to the cel-lular industry as site loca-tions." The approval process ismuch simpler when a site isproposed on municipal land.For example, no public hear-ings are required. Kiser reportsthat Gastonia can earn inexcess of $15,000 per year inlease payments for a towerlocated on city property. More-over, if a second cellularprovider co-locates on a tower(as the city encourages), thecity takes in 50 percent of thepayment that provider makesto the tower owner. All told,Gastonia will earn $80,000next year from the five towers(four of which have co-loca-tors) currently on city-ownedland. These towers will yield$3 million over a 25 year peri-od, not counting taxes, if theystay that long.

The city has also benefited

Visual Analysiscontinued from page 11

by being able toco-locate, at nocost, all munici-pal antennas(emergency, non-emergency, andmobile data termi-nals) on the towersbeing built.

Kiser believes that res-idents are not as upset whenthey see that the city willfinancially benefit from tow-ers that would likely be builtin any event. This is especial-ly the case if some of the rev-enues can be earmarked toimprove the public area with-in which the tower is located.Kiser also notes that thetelecommunications compa-nies have supported the city'spolicy, since it meets their toppriority of getting their facili-ties installed as quickly aspossible.

AbandonedTowers

While right now it’s boomtimes in the wireless commu-nications industry, it’s alwayshard to predict where tech-nology will be ten or twentyyears from now. As a result,many communities with newwireless tower ordinanceshave wisely included provi-sions making the towerowner responsible for remov-ing the structure if it stopsbeing used for communica-tions purposes.

The Overland Park,Kansas, communicationstower ordinance is typical inproviding that “any antennaor tower that is not operatedfor a continuous period oftwelve months shall be con-sidered abandoned, and theowner of such antenna ortower shall remove the samewithin ninety days of areceipt of notice ... If suchantenna or tower is notremoved within said ninetydays, the governing authority

mayremovesuch antenna ortower at the owner’s expense.”

Public HealthImpacts[From a report published by theVermont Natural ResourcesCouncil]

“The electromagnetic spec-trum consists of both ionizingand non-ionizing radiation.Ionizing forms of radiationinclude ultraviolet rays, X- andGamma rays, and Cosmic raysfrom the sun. Their harmfuleffects, particularly theirpotential to cause cancer, arewell known. ...

Radiofrequency fields,including microwaves, arewithin the non-ionizing spec-trum, but that doesn’t meanthey’re completely safe. Theirknown danger is that undersome circumstances — forexample, at the transmissionpoint for FM radio signals —they can produce enough ener-gy to cause heating in conduc-tive materials, includinghuman tissue. The heating, or“thermal,” effects of high-fre-quency, non-ionizing forms ofradiation are understood; toprevent them, owners ofbroadcast towers are requiredto erect fencing and/or postsigns to keep the public at adistance from the facilities.

Where the opinion of sci-ence is divided, however, is in

13


Some Observationsby Robert Baldwin

Municipal tower regulations cangenerally be divided into the fol-lowing broad categories:

1. Regulations that requireevery request for a tower to gothrough a zoning process ofsome sort, either to obtain a spe-cial exception, conditional usepermit, or some other type ofcommission approval;

2. Regulations that allowtowers by right in some districts,provided that certain develop-ment standards, such as setbacksfrom residential districts, aremet, but prohibit towers in resi-dential districts;

3. Regulations that throughthe use of such stringent loca-tional criteria on the placementof towers essentially prohibitthem; or

4. Regulations that are silentas to tower locations or exempttowers from the height regula-tions established in the zoningregulations.

Most of the municipalitieswe work in require that everytower be approved on a case-by-case basis. The regulations oftendo not specifically address wire-less communications towers, butthe cities have determined thatthese types of towers fall underthe generic land use for radio,television, or microwave towersand, as such, require a specificuse permit or are classified asconditional uses.

In my experience, cities thatrequire every tower to be heardand approved by a board or com-mission tend to have the hardesttime with towers. This is espe-cially the case in larger commu-nities, where a board orcommission may be facing sever-al tower requests a month. I havebeen to a meeting where theboard of adjustment heard 15separate tower requests!

If elected and appointed offi-cials are getting tired of this, andare approving most towerrequests anyway, it probablymakes sense to restructure theregulations to allow towers byright in certain locations, butprohibit them in other areas. Forexample, a city might allow, byright, communications towers upto 120 feet in height in all indus-trial zoning districts, as long asthe towers are at least 300 feetfrom the nearest residential zon-ing district.

This type of approach workswell provided that the areaswhere towers are permitted aredistributed across the city. Cityofficials do not have to hear anddecide every tower request, resi-dential areas can be protectedfrom new towers in close prox-imity, and communications com-panies will know in advancewhere their towers can go.

I have also worked in com-munities with ordinances sosevere that towers are essentiallyprohibited. Since the Telecom-munications Act now providesthat local regulations cannot“prohibit or have the effect ofprohibiting the provision of per-sonal wireless services” theseordinances may run afoul of thefederal law.

There are also communitieswhose zoning ordinances aretotally silent on towers. Chancesare, if an ordinance has not beenrevised in the last ten years, tow-ers are either not mentioned orexempted with a passage thatreads “height limits do not applyto radio or television antennas.”If your ordinance falls into thiscategory, it is a good idea to fix it.

Robert Baldwin is a planner with the Dallas, Texas, law firm of Munsch Hardt Kopf Harr & Dinan.He has been involved in the siting ofa number of wireless towers.

continued on page 14

regard to exposure to non-thermal (or athermal) energywaves, which do not heat bodytissue. ... While proof of dan-ger from exposure to non-ther-mal RFR [radiofrequencyradiation] thus far hasremained elusive, theories ofnegative effects include thatsuch exposure indirectly dam-ages DNA, and, perhaps, theelectrical transmissionsinvolved in the nervous sys-tem. ... The Cancer Journal(Vol. 8, No. 5) provides a cau-tious voice, stating: ‘Epidemi-ology has seen a large numberof examples where health haz-ards were initially describedwith unconvincing and some-times inadequate experimentswhich demonstrated a weakassociation with a given envi-ronmental influence. Suchassociations were foundbetween cholera and drinkingwater containing fecal contam-inants, between smoking andlung cancer or between expo-sure to vinyl chloride and cer-tain forms of liver cancer. Allthese associations were highlyquestioned in the past and arenow well recognized.’ ...

On August 1, 1996,responding to the Congres-sional mandate as enunciatedin the TCA [Telecommunica-tions Act], the FCC adoptednew health and safety regula-tions for exposure. These arebased on standards establishedby the National Council onRadiation Protection and Mea-surement, a congressionallychartered organization. ...They are scheduled to becomeeffective September 1, 1997.

It is important to note thatthe FCC addresses health con-cerns by controlling for expo-sure — not emissions. Alicensee might simply berequired to post signs or erectfences around a microwavetransmission facility to keep

The report is available for $10from the Vermont NaturalResources Council, 9 BaileyAve., Montpelier, VT 05602;802-223-2328; e-mail:[email protected]

Additional information aboutthe health impacts of exposure toelectro-magnetic fields is avail-able at the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health SciencesWeb site: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/other.htm

Wireless BenefitsThe Federal Communica-

tions Commission on the ben-efits of wireless technology:

“Personal wireless servicesare not just car phones forbusinesses. Due to technologi-cal innovation and the contin-uing availability of additionalspectrum, PCS and cellularproviders are offering light-weight portable phones atincreasingly affordable pricesthat enable consumers to makeand accept calls anywhere andat anytime. It is also anticipat-ed that providers of personalwireless services will offerwireless computer networkingand wireless Internet access.Many PCS providers alsointend to offer a service thatwill eventually compete direct-ly with residential localexchange and exchange accessservices. The inherent flexibili-ty of wireless services makes itpossible to introduce new ser-vice offerings on a dynamicbasis as consumer demandsgrow and change.

Wireless services are alsointegral to many businessesthat rely on mobility of theiroperations to provide goodsand services to consumers.Communicating by a wirelessnetwork enables companies in various businesses, from car rentals to package delivery, to operate in a more efficientmanner, and to ultimatelylower the cost to the consumerwhile improving the quality

the public at a distance. Andthe new NCRP standards ...calculate only for thermalexposure. Questions aboutlong-term, low-level exposureremain unaddressed. ...

Concern about the healtheffects of emissions from a cel-lular tower is not a permissiblebasis for making local zoningdecisions if the tower is incompliance with FCC stan-dards; it is, however, a permis-sible basis for regulating radioand television towers, andother facilities that do not fallwithin the definition of ‘per-sonal wireless services.’ More-over, local authorities mayregulate ‘personal wireless ser-vice facilities’ to the extentthey do not comply with theFCC guidelines. ... But first itmust be determined that theyare out of compliance.

Spot inspections by theFCC are not routine, and longperiods of time separate a facil-ity’s relicensing procedure,when such an evaluationmight be done. Thus it wouldseem an appropriate invest-ment for Vermont’s state gov-ernment ... to see to it thatmunicipalities were equippedand enabled to periodicallydetermine the compliance sta-tus of the towers and transmis-sion facilities within theirborders.”

Reprinted with permission fromTelecommunications andBroadcasting TransmissionFacilities in Vermont (August1997, Vermont NaturalResources Council).

Editor’s Note: While this just-released report primarily focuseson wireless communicationswithin Vermont’s regulatory con-text, it does include materialwhich may be of interest to read-ers outside of Vermont — inparticular, two chapters dealing,respectively, with radiofrequencyinterference and public healthimpacts (from which the materi-al in this sidebar was excerpted)

14


of service.It is also worthwhile to

keep in mind that the antennastructures required to deploypersonal wireless services canbe used for other purposes thatcould benefit your community.For example, a communitythat has a long-term plan toimprove its public safety com-munications may be able toexpedite that process by team-ing with personal wireless ser-vice providers to constructnew sites that could be usedfor deployment of both publicsafety and personal wirelesscommunications. Further-more, wireless telecommunica-tions and data services play anincreasing (and increasinglysophisticated) role in provid-ing healthcare services. Per-sonal wireless serviceproviders may also serve as alower-cost source of advancedtelecommunications capabili-ties for schools and libraries.”

From FCC Fact Sheet #2. Infor-mation on how to obtain thisdocument is available at the endof the “Environmental Review”note on page 12.

Public Health Impactscontinued from page 13

BE

N C

AM

PA

NE

LL

I

150’ Lattice tower with microwavedishes.

On the HorizonThe broadcast industry this

August filed a petition with theFCC to drastically curtail stateand local review of the sitingof DTV (digital television)towers — the “next genera-tion” of broadcast towers.

According to the FCC’snotice of rulemaking: “Peti-tioners state that the accelerat-ed DTV transition schedule[approved by the FCC] willrequire extensive and concen-trated tower construction.They estimate that 66 percentof existing television broad-casters will require new orupgraded towers to supportDTV service, involving an esti-mated 1000 television towers.Moreover, they state, as aresult of the increased weightand windloading of DTV facili-ties and other tower con-straints, a number of FMbroadcast stations which havecollocated their FM antennason television towers will beforced to relocate to otherexisting towers or to constructnew transmission facilities. ...

Petitioners propose a rulewhich provides specific timelimits for state and local gov-ernment action in response torequests for approval of theplacement, construction ormodification of broadcasttransmission facilities ... [gen-erally] requests would have tobe acted upon within 45 days.Failure to act within thesetime limits would cause therequest to be deemed granted.... Petitioners would categori-cally preempt regulationsbased on the environmental orhealth effects of radio frequen-cy (“RF”) emissions to theextent a broadcast facility hasbeen determined by the Com-mission to comply with its regulations and policies con-cerning emissions; interferencewith other telecommunica-tions signals and consumerelectronics devices as long as

the broadcast antenna facilityhas been determined by theCommission to comply withits applicable regulationsand/or policies concerninginterference. ...

Further, the rule would pre-empt all state and local landuse, building, and similar laws,rules or regulations that impairthe ability of licensed broad-casters to place, construct ormodify their transmissionfacilities unless the promulgat-ing authority can demonstratethat the regulation is reason-able in relation to a clearlydefined and expressly statedhealth or safety objective.”

The FCC’s notice of rule-making goes on to state that:“To the extent that state andlocal ordinances result indelays that make it impossiblefor broadcasters to meet ourconstruction schedule andprovide DTV service to thepublic, important Congres-sional and FCC objectivesregarding prompt availabilityof this service to the public…would be frustrated. At thesame time, we are sensitive tothe rights of states and locali-ties to protect the legitimateinterests of their citizens andwe do not seek to unnecessari-ly infringe these rights.

The Commission recog-nizes its obligation to ‘reach afair accommodation betweenfederal and nonfederal inter-ests.’... Thus, it is incumbentupon the Commission not to‘unduly interfere with thelegitimate affairs of local gov-ernments when they do notfrustrate federal objectives.’These include not only certainhealth and safety regulations,which the Petitioners’ pro-posed rule recognizes, but alsothe right of localities to main-tain their aesthetic qualities.”

More information on this rule-making is available at the FCC’sweb site:http://www.fcc.gov/state&local/

15


WirelessMiscellany

Contacts:Cape Cod CommissionGay Wells at: 508-362-3828 (phone); 508-362-3136 (fax)

Claremont, CaliforniaLisa Prasse at: 909-399-5486 (phone); 909-399-5366 (fax)

Daly City, CaliforniaAl Savay at: 415-991-8033 (phone)

Gastonia, North CarolinaJack Kiser at: 704-854-6652 (phone);704-864-9732 (fax)

Liberty, MissouriBonnie Johnson at: 816-792-6000 x3107 (phone)

Matthews, North CarolinaKathi Ingrish at: 704-847-4411 (phone);704-845-1964 (fax)

Overland Park, KansasLeslie Karr at: 913-895-6190 (phone); 913-895-5013 (fax)

Solon, Ohio.Edward Suit at: 330-399-8964 (phone)

Sonoma, California. Sandra Cleisz at: 707-938-3743 (phone)

Vermont Environmental BoardDavid Grayck at: 802-828-5444 (phone)

Windham Regional Commission, VermontSusan McMahon at: 802-257-4547 (phone)

The Larson CompanyScott Krenzer at: 800-527-7668

Stealth Network TechnologiesJim Haldeman at: 800-755-0689.

planning for cellular towers - plannerswebplannersweb.com/wp-content/uploads/1997/10/331.pdf ·...

Documents