Laserfiche WebLink
its residents will be able to receive satisfactory <br />service from cellular towers located in a <br />neighboring jurisdiction. So prohibiting the <br />siting of the towers in the town may not have <br />the effect of prohibiting the provision of the <br />service to town residents. It is the "provision of <br />the service" that must be allowed, not the <br />siting of the facility. <br /> <br />What should the locality do? <br /> In addition to examining its current zoning and <br />land use ordinances, a county or other local <br />govermnent should undertake the same kind of <br />review -- and revision if necessary m of the <br />permitting and other processes that it uses to <br />grant permission to construct towers and similar <br />facilities in the community. Is there a standard, <br />written procedure for processing siting permits <br />and other approvals? Are similar services treated <br />similarly? If there are differences in fees, <br />processing time, bonding requirements or other <br />regulations, are the differences reasonably related <br />to the differences between facilities? <br /> The following techniques have allowed various <br />local governments to accommodate facilities and <br />still maintain community attractiveness and quality: <br /> <br />Co.location <br /> Co-location means that a number of different <br />providers locate their transmitting facilities <br />together in the same place or on the same towers <br />or mono-poles. Co-location also can include the <br />use of the same tower or pole for a number of <br />different kinds of telecommunications services. <br />Although competitors may balk, most <br />communications towers can -- and typically do <br />-- carry several transmitters of several different <br />providers. The illustration at the right shows the <br />range of services that can be accommodated at <br />different heights on one tower. The television <br />transmitting antenna, which serves ranges of 30 or <br />more miles, needs a very tall tower -- 750 to 1000 <br />feet is common -- and is located on the top of <br />that tower. Several paging service antennas <br />occupy different 1 ~ocations, and FM radio, SMR <br />and cellular transmitters occupy lower leveh. <br /> A local government that wants to encourage <br /> co-location should keep in mind that it cannot <br /> "unreasonably discriminate" among personal wireless <br /> communications service providers. To protect a <br /> policy of co-location from charges of unreasonable <br /> discrimination, a local government might: <br /> <br /> Antenna Farm . <br /> Television <br /> <br />(c~mmerdal), <br /> <br />FU <br /> <br />Pagin~ <br /> <br />Sma~ FM <br /> <br />Ce~ular <br /> <br /> {un~ aM ~ <br /> <br />Enact the policy into an ordinance. <br /> <br />Provide for incentives for co-location-- such <br />as a shorter processing time for applicants <br />who want to locate on a tower that has <br />already been approved, based on a <br />reasonable conclusion that such a site <br />requires less additional evaluation compared <br />to the legitimate evaluation and review <br />needed for a new site. <br /> <br />· Set ou{ in writing the application process <br /> <br />/~ COUNt' AND LOCAL OFr/ClAL~ GUIDe ro THC TELECOm~IUN/CATION& ACT OI= 1996 <br /> <br /> <br />