|
11
<br />
<br />1992
<br />
<br />I993
<br />
<br />1994
<br />
<br />1995
<br />
<br />2000
<br />
<br />34,000
<br />
<br />0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,00035,000
<br />
<br />t segment ol'~ map in ct hvpotheticr~l city/!ertl shows where
<br />crll 3ires ;nigi~t be placed if nom~ of the 10 carriers will :o-
<br />/oc~He. Above: l'he number o/']~eop/e using ce/hd~w' devices is
<br />e.,:pected lo explode within the next/;,w ve~u's.
<br />
<br />government officials, community lead-
<br />ers. industry representatives, and other
<br />interested parties. The topics include wire-
<br />less communications; the types of facili-
<br />ties needed; the method used to select
<br />possible sites; how the permitting pro-
<br />cess works; and health issues and prop-
<br />erty values. AT&T Wireless Services has
<br />held such gatherings in Boston, New York,
<br />Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and sev-
<br />eral other jurisdictions.
<br /> Local governments should also review
<br />their land-use legislation to be sure that it
<br />coincides with the provisions of the tele-
<br />communications act. Other elements that
<br />jurisdictions should consider are: use by
<br />right in industrial and commercial zones;
<br />a hearing process for residential areas;
<br />specific, as opposed to qualitative, re-
<br />view standards; fixed time frames for
<br />permit processing; and separation of the
<br />
<br />land solves two problems: Local govern-
<br />ments can choose the best locations for
<br />wireless facilities, and applicants can get
<br />in and out of the permitting process quicMy.
<br />New companies have popped up to mar-
<br />lqet these public lands and to direct the
<br />carriers to "easy" city and county sites.
<br /> The problem is that the wireless firms
<br />often insist on an exclusive arrangement
<br />with the community, in effect tying up
<br />access to public land--and exposing the
<br />community to potential legal challenges.
<br />Further, private landowners may object
<br />to the competition from a public body.
<br /> An alternative approach is to require
<br />all ceil sites to be located on land owned
<br />or leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood,
<br />New Jersey, is trying that, although it has
<br />only three publicly owned sites that qualify.
<br />The suburban Passaic County commu-
<br />nit/has also offered to lease land from
<br />private landowners seeking a cell site
<br />and then to sublease the site to a wireless
<br />carrier.
<br /> A wireless master plan is another way
<br /> to go. The town of Windsor, Connecticut,
<br /> is considering the preparation of such a
<br /> plan for the area between Hartford and
<br /> Bradley International Airport. Also, the
<br /> Mid-America Regional Council, which
<br /> encompasses eight counties and 114. mu-
<br /> nicipalities in two states around Kansas
<br /> City, has begun a two-phase process that
<br /> could lead to a regional wireless master
<br /> plan.
<br /> The master plan approach involves two
<br /> steps. The first is to approve the areas
<br /> where celt facilities could be located. The
<br /> second step is to review individual site
<br />
<br />applications. A more stringent review
<br />would be required for properties not iden-
<br />tified in the master plan. A twO-step ap-
<br />proach has the advantage of assuring
<br />public input at an early stage. Because it
<br />requires a map, it is also thd'only ap-
<br />proach that ensures some degree of cer-
<br />tainty.
<br /> Given all the options, I would say that
<br />the wireless master plan is the tool of
<br />choice. At this writing, only a few cities
<br />and counties are exploring the master
<br />plan approach, so there is no model to
<br />follow. But carriers are bound to tire of
<br />the ad hoc approach of siting one cell
<br />facility at a time. I predict that they will
<br />soon request the certainty that comes
<br />with a wireless master plan.
<br /> The courts are also pointing the way.
<br />There have been four important court
<br />cases on wireless planning so far, and
<br />there are sure to be many more. Earlier
<br />this year, a federal court upheld a six-
<br />month moratorium imposed by the city
<br />of Medina, Washington. Sprint Spectrum
<br />had asked for a preliminary injunction to
<br />override the moratorium, which Medina
<br />argued it needed to give it time to plan for
<br />cell sites. But another federal court up-
<br />held the contention of BellSouth Mobil-
<br />ity that Gwinnett County, Georgia, had
<br />not presented sufficient evidence to sup-
<br />port its denial of a permit.
<br /> Meanwhile, a group of residents in
<br /> Franklin County, Texas, won a tempo-
<br /> rary injunction against construction of a
<br /> multicarrier tower, which they argued
<br /> would impair their quality of life and
<br /> diminish property values. Franklin County
<br />
<br />has not required permits for tower con-
<br />struction. In Pennsylvania, the state court
<br />of appeals denied Bell Atlantic Mobile
<br />Systems' claim that a 150-foot celtular
<br />fowler was an essential service that should
<br />be permitted as of right.
<br /> The courts are a bellwether of what's
<br />ahead for planners. It's clear that plan-
<br />ning is needed'. So is a factual record and
<br />a review process.
<br />Ted Kreines, AICP
<br />
<br />Kreines is president of Kreines & Kreines in
<br />Tiburon, California. The firm specializes in
<br />wireless planning.
<br />
<br />Terms of Art
<br />
<br /> Applicants The people and compa-
<br />nies that apply for personal wireless fa-
<br />cilities: site acquisition representatives,
<br />lawyers, cell site builders, landowners,
<br />and others. Be aware that some appli-
<br />cants seek approval of cell sites and then
<br />sell or lease them to the carriers or land-
<br />owners they represent.
<br /> Carriers Companies licensed by the
<br />FCC to build personal wireless facilities
<br />and operate personal wireless services.
<br />There are also unlicensed carriers.
<br /> Personal wireless facilities Described
<br />in the Telecommunications Act of 1996
<br />as facilities for the provision of personal
<br />wireless services.
<br /> Personal wireless services Commer-
<br />cial mobile services, unlicensed wireless
<br />services, and common carrier wireless
<br />exchange access services.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|